<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_1525257</id>
	<title>Did We Lose the Privacy War?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266338640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eihab writes <i>"I've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years. I've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics, disabling third-party cookies, encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay. Recently, I've been feeling like I'm just doing too much and still losing! No matter what I do, I know that there's a weak link somewhere, be it my ISP, Flash cookies, etc. I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it. I just can't take this anymore. I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do. I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe. One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places. Case in point: I changed my life insurance two years ago, and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients' data were stolen. That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse. Am I just too paranoid? Is privacy dead? Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore (like <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/11/1916203/Facebooks-Zuckerberg-Says-Forget-Privacy">Facebook's founder recently said</a>) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eihab writes " I 've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years .
I 've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics , disabling third-party cookies , encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay .
Recently , I 've been feeling like I 'm just doing too much and still losing !
No matter what I do , I know that there 's a weak link somewhere , be it my ISP , Flash cookies , etc .
I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it .
I just ca n't take this anymore .
I have nothing to hide , but I do not want to be profiled and become member # 5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do .
I know I 'm not that interesting to anyone , but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe .
One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places .
Case in point : I changed my life insurance two years ago , and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients ' data were stolen .
That medical firm did n't really need my SSN , but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse .
Am I just too paranoid ?
Is privacy dead ?
Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore ( like Facebook 's founder recently said ) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eihab writes "I've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years.
I've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics, disabling third-party cookies, encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay.
Recently, I've been feeling like I'm just doing too much and still losing!
No matter what I do, I know that there's a weak link somewhere, be it my ISP, Flash cookies, etc.
I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.
I just can't take this anymore.
I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do.
I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe.
One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places.
Case in point: I changed my life insurance two years ago, and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients' data were stolen.
That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse.
Am I just too paranoid?
Is privacy dead?
Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore (like Facebook's founder recently said) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157042</id>
	<title>How to win at privacy.</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1266344940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1&gt; Unplug everything and I mean everything.<br><br>2&gt; Pay cash for everything.<br><br>3&gt; When you pay cash, don't tell them where you live. Use a made up zip code.<br><br>4&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br><br>5&gt; Private!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 &gt; Unplug everything and I mean everything.2 &gt; Pay cash for everything.3 &gt; When you pay cash , do n't tell them where you live .
Use a made up zip code.4 &gt; ...5 &gt; Private !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1&gt; Unplug everything and I mean everything.2&gt; Pay cash for everything.3&gt; When you pay cash, don't tell them where you live.
Use a made up zip code.4&gt; ...5&gt; Private!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156796</id>
	<title>Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Derosian</author>
	<datestamp>1266344160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you guys but the best privacy I've found on the internet has more to do with no one really caring who you are, in which case I would prefer to be a number.  Generally the internet, and media, and advertising may want to target you, but so far I'm just a number in all that data, and there isn't THAT much information publicly available on me, and to top it off, there is no reason to be interested in me.  Just blend in with the crowd and your privacy is protected through obscurity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you guys but the best privacy I 've found on the internet has more to do with no one really caring who you are , in which case I would prefer to be a number .
Generally the internet , and media , and advertising may want to target you , but so far I 'm just a number in all that data , and there is n't THAT much information publicly available on me , and to top it off , there is no reason to be interested in me .
Just blend in with the crowd and your privacy is protected through obscurity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you guys but the best privacy I've found on the internet has more to do with no one really caring who you are, in which case I would prefer to be a number.
Generally the internet, and media, and advertising may want to target you, but so far I'm just a number in all that data, and there isn't THAT much information publicly available on me, and to top it off, there is no reason to be interested in me.
Just blend in with the crowd and your privacy is protected through obscurity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652</id>
	<title>Tracking your TV watching is good</title>
	<author>Yossarian45793</author>
	<datestamp>1266343740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand concerns about privacy when it comes to web browsing, but I don't get the fear about TV watching being tracked. I can't count the number of good TV shows that have been canceled because of bad ratings. Before Tivo existed, every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV. Ever since I've had Tivo I always record all the shows I like and I'm happy that Tivo is collecting that information. Sometimes I even record and play back reruns (with the TV off) to positively affect the data for the shows I like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand concerns about privacy when it comes to web browsing , but I do n't get the fear about TV watching being tracked .
I ca n't count the number of good TV shows that have been canceled because of bad ratings .
Before Tivo existed , every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV .
Ever since I 've had Tivo I always record all the shows I like and I 'm happy that Tivo is collecting that information .
Sometimes I even record and play back reruns ( with the TV off ) to positively affect the data for the shows I like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand concerns about privacy when it comes to web browsing, but I don't get the fear about TV watching being tracked.
I can't count the number of good TV shows that have been canceled because of bad ratings.
Before Tivo existed, every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV.
Ever since I've had Tivo I always record all the shows I like and I'm happy that Tivo is collecting that information.
Sometimes I even record and play back reruns (with the TV off) to positively affect the data for the shows I like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31177974</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care that they have my personal info. What can they really do with the fact that I'm an 89 year old female who makes $20,000 one year and $150,000 the next. I also enjoy knitting and rugby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care that they have my personal info .
What can they really do with the fact that I 'm an 89 year old female who makes $ 20,000 one year and $ 150,000 the next .
I also enjoy knitting and rugby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care that they have my personal info.
What can they really do with the fact that I'm an 89 year old female who makes $20,000 one year and $150,000 the next.
I also enjoy knitting and rugby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157052</id>
	<title>Re:Accept and enjoy!</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266345000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what would you say if this giant catalog of your preferences said that you want to steal from your bank, because you missed a credit card payment once?  What if it says that you want to cost your health insurer money, because your medical history shows that you have had more illnesses than average?  Or that you want to be a drag on your employer, because your DNA profile indicates that you don't have the genes to perform as well as your peers.  What if it said that you want to kill people, because you signed up for military service to defend your country, or you were drafted?  What if it said that you have mental health issues, because you saw a marriage counselor or went to a psychiatrist when you had trouble sleeping?</p><p>If the information in those catalogs were true and accurate and complete descriptions of you, then you might have a point.  You might want to live in a world in which you had better health insurance or an easier job, or a more subservient spouse, or lived in a safer neighborhood or a padded room.</p><p>But what if they weren't?</p><p>What if they were mistaken?  What if they were in error?  What if they were downright lies?</p><p>And what if you never even knew they existed, and never had access to view or correct any of them?</p><p>Would that still be a good thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what would you say if this giant catalog of your preferences said that you want to steal from your bank , because you missed a credit card payment once ?
What if it says that you want to cost your health insurer money , because your medical history shows that you have had more illnesses than average ?
Or that you want to be a drag on your employer , because your DNA profile indicates that you do n't have the genes to perform as well as your peers .
What if it said that you want to kill people , because you signed up for military service to defend your country , or you were drafted ?
What if it said that you have mental health issues , because you saw a marriage counselor or went to a psychiatrist when you had trouble sleeping ? If the information in those catalogs were true and accurate and complete descriptions of you , then you might have a point .
You might want to live in a world in which you had better health insurance or an easier job , or a more subservient spouse , or lived in a safer neighborhood or a padded room.But what if they were n't ? What if they were mistaken ?
What if they were in error ?
What if they were downright lies ? And what if you never even knew they existed , and never had access to view or correct any of them ? Would that still be a good thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what would you say if this giant catalog of your preferences said that you want to steal from your bank, because you missed a credit card payment once?
What if it says that you want to cost your health insurer money, because your medical history shows that you have had more illnesses than average?
Or that you want to be a drag on your employer, because your DNA profile indicates that you don't have the genes to perform as well as your peers.
What if it said that you want to kill people, because you signed up for military service to defend your country, or you were drafted?
What if it said that you have mental health issues, because you saw a marriage counselor or went to a psychiatrist when you had trouble sleeping?If the information in those catalogs were true and accurate and complete descriptions of you, then you might have a point.
You might want to live in a world in which you had better health insurance or an easier job, or a more subservient spouse, or lived in a safer neighborhood or a padded room.But what if they weren't?What if they were mistaken?
What if they were in error?
What if they were downright lies?And what if you never even knew they existed, and never had access to view or correct any of them?Would that still be a good thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162618</id>
	<title>Re:are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266326580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That the information is not valuable has no bearing on me not wanting to be watched by others. That information is valuable by the way, how do you think advertizing works.</p><p>Anyway, me taking a dump has no value to others, but it would still bother me if someone would be watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That the information is not valuable has no bearing on me not wanting to be watched by others .
That information is valuable by the way , how do you think advertizing works.Anyway , me taking a dump has no value to others , but it would still bother me if someone would be watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the information is not valuable has no bearing on me not wanting to be watched by others.
That information is valuable by the way, how do you think advertizing works.Anyway, me taking a dump has no value to others, but it would still bother me if someone would be watching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159992</id>
	<title>yeah we lost it...</title>
	<author>perlchild</author>
	<datestamp>1266313860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We never showed up...</p><p>If we had, you can be sure we'd know of at least one case, just one battle, in which we had traded shots...</p><p>No, we're looking at people saying they're fighting, but we're NOT taking to the streets demanding privacy back.</p><p>We're also NOT promising any politician touching our personal privacy "You'll never work in politics in this country again" and making it stick...</p><p>It's like an appendix, we're just hoping the operation to get rid of it won't be too painful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We never showed up...If we had , you can be sure we 'd know of at least one case , just one battle , in which we had traded shots...No , we 're looking at people saying they 're fighting , but we 're NOT taking to the streets demanding privacy back.We 're also NOT promising any politician touching our personal privacy " You 'll never work in politics in this country again " and making it stick...It 's like an appendix , we 're just hoping the operation to get rid of it wo n't be too painful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We never showed up...If we had, you can be sure we'd know of at least one case, just one battle, in which we had traded shots...No, we're looking at people saying they're fighting, but we're NOT taking to the streets demanding privacy back.We're also NOT promising any politician touching our personal privacy "You'll never work in politics in this country again" and making it stick...It's like an appendix, we're just hoping the operation to get rid of it won't be too painful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157470</id>
	<title>Stand up or sit down</title>
	<author>mabu</author>
	<datestamp>1266346380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it. I just can't take this anymore."</p></div></blockquote><p>Apparently you can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it .
I just ca n't take this anymore .
" Apparently you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.
I just can't take this anymore.
"Apparently you can.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161454</id>
	<title>Re:OP, show some backbone</title>
	<author>turbotroll</author>
	<datestamp>1266320400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.</p></div></blockquote><p>If there is a privacy war it is a war of one.  You know the chef is poisoning the soup but you find it too delicious to stop eating.</p><p>Cancel your cable.  War won.</p></div><p>Not surprisingly, people who refuse to grow a spine are one of the biggest parts of the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it.If there is a privacy war it is a war of one .
You know the chef is poisoning the soup but you find it too delicious to stop eating.Cancel your cable .
War won.Not surprisingly , people who refuse to grow a spine are one of the biggest parts of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.If there is a privacy war it is a war of one.
You know the chef is poisoning the soup but you find it too delicious to stop eating.Cancel your cable.
War won.Not surprisingly, people who refuse to grow a spine are one of the biggest parts of the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156662</id>
	<title>Information Asymmetry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The root of the problem isn't so much what they know about you. It's how much they know about you, relative to what you're allowed to know about those who collect your personally-identifiable information.  There is no apparent way to naturally keep companies, or for that matter, governments, in check with respect to information asymmetry without relevant laws and enforcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The root of the problem is n't so much what they know about you .
It 's how much they know about you , relative to what you 're allowed to know about those who collect your personally-identifiable information .
There is no apparent way to naturally keep companies , or for that matter , governments , in check with respect to information asymmetry without relevant laws and enforcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root of the problem isn't so much what they know about you.
It's how much they know about you, relative to what you're allowed to know about those who collect your personally-identifiable information.
There is no apparent way to naturally keep companies, or for that matter, governments, in check with respect to information asymmetry without relevant laws and enforcement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160656</id>
	<title>Listen to the wisdom of the Milch cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266316920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a stay at home, mummy loving, instruction obeying, cud chewing milch cow then I don't suppose you'd have anything to worry about. Indeed, to you it would be a hobby. You probably feel safer knowing your place. Good for you.</p><p>For anyone who might have a bit of spark in their character and an unwillingness to obey just because someone says so, it might be a serious issue.</p><p>Yawn. Excuse me, I have more cows to milk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a stay at home , mummy loving , instruction obeying , cud chewing milch cow then I do n't suppose you 'd have anything to worry about .
Indeed , to you it would be a hobby .
You probably feel safer knowing your place .
Good for you.For anyone who might have a bit of spark in their character and an unwillingness to obey just because someone says so , it might be a serious issue.Yawn .
Excuse me , I have more cows to milk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a stay at home, mummy loving, instruction obeying, cud chewing milch cow then I don't suppose you'd have anything to worry about.
Indeed, to you it would be a hobby.
You probably feel safer knowing your place.
Good for you.For anyone who might have a bit of spark in their character and an unwillingness to obey just because someone says so, it might be a serious issue.Yawn.
Excuse me, I have more cows to milk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156960</id>
	<title>Computers are the weapon...</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1266344700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For ages our privacy was protected only by <strong>the others' ability to remember</strong>. A human being can only remember so many faces and facts about other people (and himself, for that matter)...

</p><p>Written records reduced the privacy immensely. Computers made the next giant leap. The only thing we can do is <em>legislate</em>, what the computers are allowed to memorize, but those would be merely human (as opposed to physical) laws and have serious limitations. Legal pitfalls will abound &mdash; an Evil Corporation may lease a server in a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/iceland-offshore-journalist-haven\_n\_459587.html" title="huffingtonpost.com">foreign locale</a> [huffingtonpost.com] to keep your data, for example. WikiLeaks has shown the ways around various attempts to close access to information.

</p><p>Information wants to be free. Does not it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For ages our privacy was protected only by the others ' ability to remember .
A human being can only remember so many faces and facts about other people ( and himself , for that matter ) .. . Written records reduced the privacy immensely .
Computers made the next giant leap .
The only thing we can do is legislate , what the computers are allowed to memorize , but those would be merely human ( as opposed to physical ) laws and have serious limitations .
Legal pitfalls will abound    an Evil Corporation may lease a server in a foreign locale [ huffingtonpost.com ] to keep your data , for example .
WikiLeaks has shown the ways around various attempts to close access to information .
Information wants to be free .
Does not it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For ages our privacy was protected only by the others' ability to remember.
A human being can only remember so many faces and facts about other people (and himself, for that matter)...

Written records reduced the privacy immensely.
Computers made the next giant leap.
The only thing we can do is legislate, what the computers are allowed to memorize, but those would be merely human (as opposed to physical) laws and have serious limitations.
Legal pitfalls will abound — an Evil Corporation may lease a server in a foreign locale [huffingtonpost.com] to keep your data, for example.
WikiLeaks has shown the ways around various attempts to close access to information.
Information wants to be free.
Does not it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165572</id>
	<title>Re:are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266346920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a matter of identity as much as it's a matter of what abuses could be done with that kind of information. For instance, in the mild case, it's creating clever ways to emotionally manipulate people in order to convince them to part with cash for useless consumables (market segmentation analysis), to the extreme case of a potentially evil government/corporation using the information to round up all {jews,gays,dissidents,} and gassing them. Whilst I'm not the overly paranoid type, I do recognise that having masses of information about peoples lives has the *potential* to be abused, and the question arises about what we as a society should do about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a matter of identity as much as it 's a matter of what abuses could be done with that kind of information .
For instance , in the mild case , it 's creating clever ways to emotionally manipulate people in order to convince them to part with cash for useless consumables ( market segmentation analysis ) , to the extreme case of a potentially evil government/corporation using the information to round up all { jews,gays,dissidents , } and gassing them .
Whilst I 'm not the overly paranoid type , I do recognise that having masses of information about peoples lives has the * potential * to be abused , and the question arises about what we as a society should do about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a matter of identity as much as it's a matter of what abuses could be done with that kind of information.
For instance, in the mild case, it's creating clever ways to emotionally manipulate people in order to convince them to part with cash for useless consumables (market segmentation analysis), to the extreme case of a potentially evil government/corporation using the information to round up all {jews,gays,dissidents,} and gassing them.
Whilst I'm not the overly paranoid type, I do recognise that having masses of information about peoples lives has the *potential* to be abused, and the question arises about what we as a society should do about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156356</id>
	<title>privacy is going obsolete</title>
	<author>u4ya</author>
	<datestamp>1266342660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubiquitous surveillance, body scanners, HD spy satellites<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is where we are today.  In a few years, tiny remote controlled insects could broadcast video and sound from virtually any private place, catching our most intimate moments.  Eventually, if and when we learn to read thoughts, no one will have any secrets left.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubiquitous surveillance , body scanners , HD spy satellites ... this is where we are today .
In a few years , tiny remote controlled insects could broadcast video and sound from virtually any private place , catching our most intimate moments .
Eventually , if and when we learn to read thoughts , no one will have any secrets left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubiquitous surveillance, body scanners, HD spy satellites ... this is where we are today.
In a few years, tiny remote controlled insects could broadcast video and sound from virtually any private place, catching our most intimate moments.
Eventually, if and when we learn to read thoughts, no one will have any secrets left.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686</id>
	<title>Yes, privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The division between the "public" and the "private" only matters when there is a world of hidden "private" lives (from which the public is excluded) and your public life (with private excluded) has to circulate within and be measured against other public lives (with private excluded).</p><p>Once everyone's private becomes public, your own private is no more embarrassing or important than the "private" of most other people.</p><p>The same thing applies to thinks like identity theft. The more these things become regarded as "public" rather than private, the more identity theft (a) will happen in volume and (b) will be commonly understood and mitigated through tools and common forms of recourse as a "regular" thing, and others won't hold you nearly so responsible for it.</p><p>The reason, in other words, that privacy seems critical is that you assume that you're being marked by and held responsible for everything in your "private" world at a much deeper level than whatever is in your "public" world. Meanwhile, however, the rest of the world continues to increasingly dissolve the "private" into the public, with the inevitable shift that the "private" will be less and less something that people will be marked and/or held responsible for.</p><p>Once your boss has a Facebook profile with pictures of their drunken weekend, and friends you with it, your own photos aren't so embarassing.<br>Once the bank has so much identity theft going on that it's considered a cost of business and made easily reversible, your responsibility for protecting these "identity" records is diminished, as are any consequences of failing to do so.</p><p>You've mistaken privacy as an inherent value and end in itself, rather than the means to an end (social success). Increasingly, social success lies along the very opposite path: being as open, public, and omni-visible/trackable as possible.</p><p>So hold on to your privacy if you really love it, but realize that society is going to reward you for it less and less, and in fact may even punish you for it relative to much less private others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The division between the " public " and the " private " only matters when there is a world of hidden " private " lives ( from which the public is excluded ) and your public life ( with private excluded ) has to circulate within and be measured against other public lives ( with private excluded ) .Once everyone 's private becomes public , your own private is no more embarrassing or important than the " private " of most other people.The same thing applies to thinks like identity theft .
The more these things become regarded as " public " rather than private , the more identity theft ( a ) will happen in volume and ( b ) will be commonly understood and mitigated through tools and common forms of recourse as a " regular " thing , and others wo n't hold you nearly so responsible for it.The reason , in other words , that privacy seems critical is that you assume that you 're being marked by and held responsible for everything in your " private " world at a much deeper level than whatever is in your " public " world .
Meanwhile , however , the rest of the world continues to increasingly dissolve the " private " into the public , with the inevitable shift that the " private " will be less and less something that people will be marked and/or held responsible for.Once your boss has a Facebook profile with pictures of their drunken weekend , and friends you with it , your own photos are n't so embarassing.Once the bank has so much identity theft going on that it 's considered a cost of business and made easily reversible , your responsibility for protecting these " identity " records is diminished , as are any consequences of failing to do so.You 've mistaken privacy as an inherent value and end in itself , rather than the means to an end ( social success ) .
Increasingly , social success lies along the very opposite path : being as open , public , and omni-visible/trackable as possible.So hold on to your privacy if you really love it , but realize that society is going to reward you for it less and less , and in fact may even punish you for it relative to much less private others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The division between the "public" and the "private" only matters when there is a world of hidden "private" lives (from which the public is excluded) and your public life (with private excluded) has to circulate within and be measured against other public lives (with private excluded).Once everyone's private becomes public, your own private is no more embarrassing or important than the "private" of most other people.The same thing applies to thinks like identity theft.
The more these things become regarded as "public" rather than private, the more identity theft (a) will happen in volume and (b) will be commonly understood and mitigated through tools and common forms of recourse as a "regular" thing, and others won't hold you nearly so responsible for it.The reason, in other words, that privacy seems critical is that you assume that you're being marked by and held responsible for everything in your "private" world at a much deeper level than whatever is in your "public" world.
Meanwhile, however, the rest of the world continues to increasingly dissolve the "private" into the public, with the inevitable shift that the "private" will be less and less something that people will be marked and/or held responsible for.Once your boss has a Facebook profile with pictures of their drunken weekend, and friends you with it, your own photos aren't so embarassing.Once the bank has so much identity theft going on that it's considered a cost of business and made easily reversible, your responsibility for protecting these "identity" records is diminished, as are any consequences of failing to do so.You've mistaken privacy as an inherent value and end in itself, rather than the means to an end (social success).
Increasingly, social success lies along the very opposite path: being as open, public, and omni-visible/trackable as possible.So hold on to your privacy if you really love it, but realize that society is going to reward you for it less and less, and in fact may even punish you for it relative to much less private others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157410</id>
	<title>5534289</title>
	<author>cstdenis</author>
	<datestamp>1266346140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am number #5534289 in a database somewhere you insensitive clod.</p><p>But here, only #1118589.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am number # 5534289 in a database somewhere you insensitive clod.But here , only # 1118589 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am number #5534289 in a database somewhere you insensitive clod.But here, only #1118589.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156984</id>
	<title>It's the form of payment</title>
	<author>nlawalker</author>
	<datestamp>1266344820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What it sounds like you want is to have it both ways - connectivity AND privacy.</p><p>I'd say that's what we all want, but I think we've come to the realization that it's not possible. If you want privacy, unplug. If you want connectivity, you pay in part by giving up your privacy, just like you do when you walk around in a public area.</p><p>It seems most people have found that the middle ground is acceptable, though. We don't need to be Shadowrunners, at least not yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What it sounds like you want is to have it both ways - connectivity AND privacy.I 'd say that 's what we all want , but I think we 've come to the realization that it 's not possible .
If you want privacy , unplug .
If you want connectivity , you pay in part by giving up your privacy , just like you do when you walk around in a public area.It seems most people have found that the middle ground is acceptable , though .
We do n't need to be Shadowrunners , at least not yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it sounds like you want is to have it both ways - connectivity AND privacy.I'd say that's what we all want, but I think we've come to the realization that it's not possible.
If you want privacy, unplug.
If you want connectivity, you pay in part by giving up your privacy, just like you do when you walk around in a public area.It seems most people have found that the middle ground is acceptable, though.
We don't need to be Shadowrunners, at least not yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160322</id>
	<title>Re:The offensive part.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266315180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If being tracked watching a TV show for a full season resulted in them going "hey, thanks for being a loyal viewer, have this X as a token of our appreciation"</p></div><p>What if the <i>X</i> of appreciation were a more personally relevant advertisement selection, as compared to the usual sample?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If being tracked watching a TV show for a full season resulted in them going " hey , thanks for being a loyal viewer , have this X as a token of our appreciation " What if the X of appreciation were a more personally relevant advertisement selection , as compared to the usual sample ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If being tracked watching a TV show for a full season resulted in them going "hey, thanks for being a loyal viewer, have this X as a token of our appreciation"What if the X of appreciation were a more personally relevant advertisement selection, as compared to the usual sample?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156970</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward in name only...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See who I am? There are other people who do. Anonymous Coward is a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See who I am ?
There are other people who do .
Anonymous Coward is a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See who I am?
There are other people who do.
Anonymous Coward is a lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157740</id>
	<title>Easy to Fix...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266347460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just vote for the "Death Penalty for CEOs of companies that lose your SSN when they didn't need it anyway" party. Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just vote for the " Death Penalty for CEOs of companies that lose your SSN when they did n't need it anyway " party .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just vote for the "Death Penalty for CEOs of companies that lose your SSN when they didn't need it anyway" party.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156536</id>
	<title>What A STupid Question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy.... in the U.S.A.?</p><p>You're surely kidding.</p><p>Yours In Minsk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy.... in the U.S.A. ? You 're surely kidding.Yours In Minsk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy.... in the U.S.A.?You're surely kidding.Yours In Minsk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158846</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is incorrect. Private companies can require your SSN as a condition of service. Your recourse is choosing not to do business with them. It is actually government agencies that cannot require your SSN as a condition of service unless they have been explicitly authorized to do so. In those cases they are generally not simply authorized but <i>required</i> to do so (by some higher state authority). It would be nice if it were different, but it's not. The government likes it because the SS system has become a necessity for living a normal life, instead of an opt-in retirement system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is incorrect .
Private companies can require your SSN as a condition of service .
Your recourse is choosing not to do business with them .
It is actually government agencies that can not require your SSN as a condition of service unless they have been explicitly authorized to do so .
In those cases they are generally not simply authorized but required to do so ( by some higher state authority ) .
It would be nice if it were different , but it 's not .
The government likes it because the SS system has become a necessity for living a normal life , instead of an opt-in retirement system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is incorrect.
Private companies can require your SSN as a condition of service.
Your recourse is choosing not to do business with them.
It is actually government agencies that cannot require your SSN as a condition of service unless they have been explicitly authorized to do so.
In those cases they are generally not simply authorized but required to do so (by some higher state authority).
It would be nice if it were different, but it's not.
The government likes it because the SS system has become a necessity for living a normal life, instead of an opt-in retirement system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157764</id>
	<title>Not all details are worth protecting</title>
	<author>LordZardoz</author>
	<datestamp>1266347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several things that need to be protected, but beyond that, much of it is not important.</p><p>From a legal standpoint, there is your financial and identifying information, which is typically anything you would need to give a company that is going to be billing you on an ongoing basis, or any information that the government uses to identify you.  Off the top of my head, that would be your Name, Address, Social Insurance Number (or SSN for the americans), Health Card number, credit card numbers, drivers licence, and passport.  This means online banking, purchasing, and government services MUST be secure, no exceptions.  You lose this, you lose the war.  However, most companies that demand this will get it.  If you do not believe me, just go ahead and try to get cable TV without giving a name or address.</p><p>Nearly as important is personal information.  This is your political beliefs, sexual orientation, who your sleeping with, what kind of porn you like, what drug abuse issues / habits you have or had in the past, what god your worship, what you really think of your dick headed boss, who you talk to / e-mail, and who your friends are.  Pre internet, these things would only be known to those you personally knew, and to those who cared enough to stalk you obsessively.  With social networking and things existing on the internet forever, it is possible that what you make public knowledge will now be trivially easy to find out and use against you.  As a civilization, we are still figuring out what the real impact of this may be.  In general, these things are very much worth protecting.</p><p>Now, what the original poster mentions is something I am not entirely sure is important, your general consumer habits.  What does it really matter if your tv company is monitoring your TV watching habits for advertisement purposes?  I look forward to the day when I can watch tv and either avoid all commercials, or at least not have to watch commercials for tampons, womens cosmetics, reverse mortgages, beer, american political ads, baseball, nascar, football, or any other products I never use.  There are many details about my personal life that have only marginal consequence.  My choice of bank, internet provider, shoes, clothes, which Videogames, TV shows and movies I enjoy, whether I prefer Burger king or McDonalds or Wendy's, and how often I purchase Pay Per View events are not the sort of thing that can cause me problems.  As long as those companies keep my purchasing info secure, it is mostly not important.  And if they keep specifically identifying information about me seperate, then it is a total non issue.</p><p>END COMMUNICATION</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several things that need to be protected , but beyond that , much of it is not important.From a legal standpoint , there is your financial and identifying information , which is typically anything you would need to give a company that is going to be billing you on an ongoing basis , or any information that the government uses to identify you .
Off the top of my head , that would be your Name , Address , Social Insurance Number ( or SSN for the americans ) , Health Card number , credit card numbers , drivers licence , and passport .
This means online banking , purchasing , and government services MUST be secure , no exceptions .
You lose this , you lose the war .
However , most companies that demand this will get it .
If you do not believe me , just go ahead and try to get cable TV without giving a name or address.Nearly as important is personal information .
This is your political beliefs , sexual orientation , who your sleeping with , what kind of porn you like , what drug abuse issues / habits you have or had in the past , what god your worship , what you really think of your dick headed boss , who you talk to / e-mail , and who your friends are .
Pre internet , these things would only be known to those you personally knew , and to those who cared enough to stalk you obsessively .
With social networking and things existing on the internet forever , it is possible that what you make public knowledge will now be trivially easy to find out and use against you .
As a civilization , we are still figuring out what the real impact of this may be .
In general , these things are very much worth protecting.Now , what the original poster mentions is something I am not entirely sure is important , your general consumer habits .
What does it really matter if your tv company is monitoring your TV watching habits for advertisement purposes ?
I look forward to the day when I can watch tv and either avoid all commercials , or at least not have to watch commercials for tampons , womens cosmetics , reverse mortgages , beer , american political ads , baseball , nascar , football , or any other products I never use .
There are many details about my personal life that have only marginal consequence .
My choice of bank , internet provider , shoes , clothes , which Videogames , TV shows and movies I enjoy , whether I prefer Burger king or McDonalds or Wendy 's , and how often I purchase Pay Per View events are not the sort of thing that can cause me problems .
As long as those companies keep my purchasing info secure , it is mostly not important .
And if they keep specifically identifying information about me seperate , then it is a total non issue.END COMMUNICATION</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several things that need to be protected, but beyond that, much of it is not important.From a legal standpoint, there is your financial and identifying information, which is typically anything you would need to give a company that is going to be billing you on an ongoing basis, or any information that the government uses to identify you.
Off the top of my head, that would be your Name, Address, Social Insurance Number (or SSN for the americans), Health Card number, credit card numbers, drivers licence, and passport.
This means online banking, purchasing, and government services MUST be secure, no exceptions.
You lose this, you lose the war.
However, most companies that demand this will get it.
If you do not believe me, just go ahead and try to get cable TV without giving a name or address.Nearly as important is personal information.
This is your political beliefs, sexual orientation, who your sleeping with, what kind of porn you like, what drug abuse issues / habits you have or had in the past, what god your worship, what you really think of your dick headed boss, who you talk to / e-mail, and who your friends are.
Pre internet, these things would only be known to those you personally knew, and to those who cared enough to stalk you obsessively.
With social networking and things existing on the internet forever, it is possible that what you make public knowledge will now be trivially easy to find out and use against you.
As a civilization, we are still figuring out what the real impact of this may be.
In general, these things are very much worth protecting.Now, what the original poster mentions is something I am not entirely sure is important, your general consumer habits.
What does it really matter if your tv company is monitoring your TV watching habits for advertisement purposes?
I look forward to the day when I can watch tv and either avoid all commercials, or at least not have to watch commercials for tampons, womens cosmetics, reverse mortgages, beer, american political ads, baseball, nascar, football, or any other products I never use.
There are many details about my personal life that have only marginal consequence.
My choice of bank, internet provider, shoes, clothes, which Videogames, TV shows and movies I enjoy, whether I prefer Burger king or McDonalds or Wendy's, and how often I purchase Pay Per View events are not the sort of thing that can cause me problems.
As long as those companies keep my purchasing info secure, it is mostly not important.
And if they keep specifically identifying information about me seperate, then it is a total non issue.END COMMUNICATION</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156928</id>
	<title>Not important to government?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You aren't important to government -- until they want something from you. That means hassle at the least, gross injustice at the worst. Common sense tells me to avoid this situation, not simply for the sake of privacy, but as a basic rule of dealing with government. Don't give them an ounce more information than they require by law, or you're going to regret it somewhere down the line.</p><p>Moreover, I would automatically distrust any individual who proclaims "you have no privacy, get over it". Exactly what is your agenda? To convince people that privacy is dead? How does that benefit you, unless you have some agenda you're not telling us? What exactly is the reason for your crusade against privacy?</p><p>Let's call a spade a spade here: privacy is built-in to human culture. It's part of being human, and I'll be damned if some random nutcase on a soapbox going to tell me to abandon my natural human desire for privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't important to government -- until they want something from you .
That means hassle at the least , gross injustice at the worst .
Common sense tells me to avoid this situation , not simply for the sake of privacy , but as a basic rule of dealing with government .
Do n't give them an ounce more information than they require by law , or you 're going to regret it somewhere down the line.Moreover , I would automatically distrust any individual who proclaims " you have no privacy , get over it " .
Exactly what is your agenda ?
To convince people that privacy is dead ?
How does that benefit you , unless you have some agenda you 're not telling us ?
What exactly is the reason for your crusade against privacy ? Let 's call a spade a spade here : privacy is built-in to human culture .
It 's part of being human , and I 'll be damned if some random nutcase on a soapbox going to tell me to abandon my natural human desire for privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't important to government -- until they want something from you.
That means hassle at the least, gross injustice at the worst.
Common sense tells me to avoid this situation, not simply for the sake of privacy, but as a basic rule of dealing with government.
Don't give them an ounce more information than they require by law, or you're going to regret it somewhere down the line.Moreover, I would automatically distrust any individual who proclaims "you have no privacy, get over it".
Exactly what is your agenda?
To convince people that privacy is dead?
How does that benefit you, unless you have some agenda you're not telling us?
What exactly is the reason for your crusade against privacy?Let's call a spade a spade here: privacy is built-in to human culture.
It's part of being human, and I'll be damned if some random nutcase on a soapbox going to tell me to abandon my natural human desire for privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159466</id>
	<title>We've lost.</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1266311460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started taking care with my online info about 12 years ago. I've only posted my photo once since then, and operate under the assumption that if I post something to the internet, everything from same pseudonym is known by someone, or will be, so if I post my name one place, my hometown in another, my job in another, I assume someone could add them up.</p><p>Sadly though, the war is won in the minds of the people. Quite literally, a story about citywide CCTV will come up and if I speak against it, I'll have kids around 20 and younger saying "<a href="http://kotaku.com/comment/18761992/" title="kotaku.com" rel="nofollow">the only reason you'd mind this is if you have something to hide!</a> [kotaku.com] It's public, so there's no expectation of privacy, so it's ok to have cameras everywhere all the time!" They never seem to get that<br>A) That's more like an immortal never-sleeping policeman waiting outside your home, following you everywhere, and then parking himself and waiting when you go back inside.<br>B) Anyone with a net connection can find hundreds or thousands of cases of police abuse of citizens, even if you only count surveillance cases.</p><p>My big conspiracy theory is still that privacy was accidentally surrendered. Everyone has cel phones. Everyone's phone has a camera. EXIF data saves the time a photo was taken. More cam-phone pics are being hosted on servers or uploaded to social sites instead of on the camera. More phones are incorporating GPS receivers and geotagging pics. Off the shelf software can identify people's faces. Even without the PATRIOT act, search warrants are seldom declined. SO, WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER... with current, non-theoretical technology in use today, if someone gets a warrant so search a photo host or a Facebook server, assuming the pics are geotagged, they can run a few scripts and know<br>- Whose pics are on the server<br>- Where you were<br>- When you were there<br>- Who you were with<br>- With enough pics, what your habits are, and who you tend to associate with<br>- Who's a friend of a friend<br>- Who took photos of police (illegal in many places in the Western world now!)</p><p>All without installing a single camera or deciding to follow a single person - because the camera is in each of our hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started taking care with my online info about 12 years ago .
I 've only posted my photo once since then , and operate under the assumption that if I post something to the internet , everything from same pseudonym is known by someone , or will be , so if I post my name one place , my hometown in another , my job in another , I assume someone could add them up.Sadly though , the war is won in the minds of the people .
Quite literally , a story about citywide CCTV will come up and if I speak against it , I 'll have kids around 20 and younger saying " the only reason you 'd mind this is if you have something to hide !
[ kotaku.com ] It 's public , so there 's no expectation of privacy , so it 's ok to have cameras everywhere all the time !
" They never seem to get thatA ) That 's more like an immortal never-sleeping policeman waiting outside your home , following you everywhere , and then parking himself and waiting when you go back inside.B ) Anyone with a net connection can find hundreds or thousands of cases of police abuse of citizens , even if you only count surveillance cases.My big conspiracy theory is still that privacy was accidentally surrendered .
Everyone has cel phones .
Everyone 's phone has a camera .
EXIF data saves the time a photo was taken .
More cam-phone pics are being hosted on servers or uploaded to social sites instead of on the camera .
More phones are incorporating GPS receivers and geotagging pics .
Off the shelf software can identify people 's faces .
Even without the PATRIOT act , search warrants are seldom declined .
SO , WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER... with current , non-theoretical technology in use today , if someone gets a warrant so search a photo host or a Facebook server , assuming the pics are geotagged , they can run a few scripts and know- Whose pics are on the server- Where you were- When you were there- Who you were with- With enough pics , what your habits are , and who you tend to associate with- Who 's a friend of a friend- Who took photos of police ( illegal in many places in the Western world now !
) All without installing a single camera or deciding to follow a single person - because the camera is in each of our hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started taking care with my online info about 12 years ago.
I've only posted my photo once since then, and operate under the assumption that if I post something to the internet, everything from same pseudonym is known by someone, or will be, so if I post my name one place, my hometown in another, my job in another, I assume someone could add them up.Sadly though, the war is won in the minds of the people.
Quite literally, a story about citywide CCTV will come up and if I speak against it, I'll have kids around 20 and younger saying "the only reason you'd mind this is if you have something to hide!
[kotaku.com] It's public, so there's no expectation of privacy, so it's ok to have cameras everywhere all the time!
" They never seem to get thatA) That's more like an immortal never-sleeping policeman waiting outside your home, following you everywhere, and then parking himself and waiting when you go back inside.B) Anyone with a net connection can find hundreds or thousands of cases of police abuse of citizens, even if you only count surveillance cases.My big conspiracy theory is still that privacy was accidentally surrendered.
Everyone has cel phones.
Everyone's phone has a camera.
EXIF data saves the time a photo was taken.
More cam-phone pics are being hosted on servers or uploaded to social sites instead of on the camera.
More phones are incorporating GPS receivers and geotagging pics.
Off the shelf software can identify people's faces.
Even without the PATRIOT act, search warrants are seldom declined.
SO, WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER... with current, non-theoretical technology in use today, if someone gets a warrant so search a photo host or a Facebook server, assuming the pics are geotagged, they can run a few scripts and know- Whose pics are on the server- Where you were- When you were there- Who you were with- With enough pics, what your habits are, and who you tend to associate with- Who's a friend of a friend- Who took photos of police (illegal in many places in the Western world now!
)All without installing a single camera or deciding to follow a single person - because the camera is in each of our hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160784</id>
	<title>Computers have advanced too much</title>
	<author>s\_p\_oneil</author>
	<datestamp>1266317460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Internet has never been private. If a packet leaves your computer, it can be seen at several points on the way to its destination. However, in the early days, there were virtually no organizations that had the CPU or storage capacity to log and report on every packet going through those routers, every firewall session, every web server hit, and so on, unless they were targeting your IP for some specific reason. The organizations that may have had that much bandwidth available had other uses for it.</p><p>Given the advances in computer hardware, it is much easier for companies to log and report on every hit to their web server, every session through their firewall, etc. With how much faster networks have gotten, it's probably still not feasible to log every packet, but it is feasible to inspect packets to look for specific types of sessions, and to log packets from sessions of interest. I work at a company that makes a network appliance that does something along those lines, and it's pretty easy. We can even monitor your Skype traffic (not listen to your calls, just see who you're chatting with).</p><p>If you want privacy that badly, give up the Internet, your cell phone, your GPS, your credit cards, and so on. Technology has made monitoring too easy for organizations to resist, and some organizations have found uses for it they never dreamed of in the first place, and they will be very unwilling to give it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet has never been private .
If a packet leaves your computer , it can be seen at several points on the way to its destination .
However , in the early days , there were virtually no organizations that had the CPU or storage capacity to log and report on every packet going through those routers , every firewall session , every web server hit , and so on , unless they were targeting your IP for some specific reason .
The organizations that may have had that much bandwidth available had other uses for it.Given the advances in computer hardware , it is much easier for companies to log and report on every hit to their web server , every session through their firewall , etc .
With how much faster networks have gotten , it 's probably still not feasible to log every packet , but it is feasible to inspect packets to look for specific types of sessions , and to log packets from sessions of interest .
I work at a company that makes a network appliance that does something along those lines , and it 's pretty easy .
We can even monitor your Skype traffic ( not listen to your calls , just see who you 're chatting with ) .If you want privacy that badly , give up the Internet , your cell phone , your GPS , your credit cards , and so on .
Technology has made monitoring too easy for organizations to resist , and some organizations have found uses for it they never dreamed of in the first place , and they will be very unwilling to give it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet has never been private.
If a packet leaves your computer, it can be seen at several points on the way to its destination.
However, in the early days, there were virtually no organizations that had the CPU or storage capacity to log and report on every packet going through those routers, every firewall session, every web server hit, and so on, unless they were targeting your IP for some specific reason.
The organizations that may have had that much bandwidth available had other uses for it.Given the advances in computer hardware, it is much easier for companies to log and report on every hit to their web server, every session through their firewall, etc.
With how much faster networks have gotten, it's probably still not feasible to log every packet, but it is feasible to inspect packets to look for specific types of sessions, and to log packets from sessions of interest.
I work at a company that makes a network appliance that does something along those lines, and it's pretty easy.
We can even monitor your Skype traffic (not listen to your calls, just see who you're chatting with).If you want privacy that badly, give up the Internet, your cell phone, your GPS, your credit cards, and so on.
Technology has made monitoring too easy for organizations to resist, and some organizations have found uses for it they never dreamed of in the first place, and they will be very unwilling to give it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157106</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1266345180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortunately slashdot does not treat us as numbers!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D By the way, Slashdot UID 984984 rocks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately slashdot does not treat us as numbers !
: D By the way , Slashdot UID 984984 rocks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately slashdot does not treat us as numbers!
:D By the way, Slashdot UID 984984 rocks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157534</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is going obsolete</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1266346620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In a few years, tiny remote controlled insects could broadcast video and sound from virtually any private place, catching our most intimate moments.</p></div><p>
The last thing I care about is some idiot in some office jacking off to me screwing the 17 year old girl next door while her 19 year old coed cheerleader friend watches.  In fact, it's legal for me to screw a 16 year old in my state; but illegal to store it in any electronic medium (I don't know if video feeds count, but you're probably recording by default...), so this might just be a rather uninteresting point for me and a rather severe legal problem for you and your employer.  Hope you bust a big load.
</p><p>
Now, tracking relevant buying habits, my daily location, my driving habits, where I go for gas, what I do for work, inferring what private corporate information I may be privy to, and thus making me a target for corporate or international espionage or for "interview" by various organized crime sectors (and subsequent "disposal") if they steal your database and find the particular employer I work for and my particular job function interesting?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm glad I'm permanently single.  At least it's only me going down when the day comes.  Chances are if I'm making awesome money to support a very happy and well-cared-for wife, much less a family (not that I'm into that, yuck), then I'm not a sales clerk at Best Buy....
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a few years , tiny remote controlled insects could broadcast video and sound from virtually any private place , catching our most intimate moments .
The last thing I care about is some idiot in some office jacking off to me screwing the 17 year old girl next door while her 19 year old coed cheerleader friend watches .
In fact , it 's legal for me to screw a 16 year old in my state ; but illegal to store it in any electronic medium ( I do n't know if video feeds count , but you 're probably recording by default... ) , so this might just be a rather uninteresting point for me and a rather severe legal problem for you and your employer .
Hope you bust a big load .
Now , tracking relevant buying habits , my daily location , my driving habits , where I go for gas , what I do for work , inferring what private corporate information I may be privy to , and thus making me a target for corporate or international espionage or for " interview " by various organized crime sectors ( and subsequent " disposal " ) if they steal your database and find the particular employer I work for and my particular job function interesting ?
... I 'm glad I 'm permanently single .
At least it 's only me going down when the day comes .
Chances are if I 'm making awesome money to support a very happy and well-cared-for wife , much less a family ( not that I 'm into that , yuck ) , then I 'm not a sales clerk at Best Buy... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In a few years, tiny remote controlled insects could broadcast video and sound from virtually any private place, catching our most intimate moments.
The last thing I care about is some idiot in some office jacking off to me screwing the 17 year old girl next door while her 19 year old coed cheerleader friend watches.
In fact, it's legal for me to screw a 16 year old in my state; but illegal to store it in any electronic medium (I don't know if video feeds count, but you're probably recording by default...), so this might just be a rather uninteresting point for me and a rather severe legal problem for you and your employer.
Hope you bust a big load.
Now, tracking relevant buying habits, my daily location, my driving habits, where I go for gas, what I do for work, inferring what private corporate information I may be privy to, and thus making me a target for corporate or international espionage or for "interview" by various organized crime sectors (and subsequent "disposal") if they steal your database and find the particular employer I work for and my particular job function interesting?
... I'm glad I'm permanently single.
At least it's only me going down when the day comes.
Chances are if I'm making awesome money to support a very happy and well-cared-for wife, much less a family (not that I'm into that, yuck), then I'm not a sales clerk at Best Buy....

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442</id>
	<title>Good privacy is really difficult</title>
	<author>jgreco</author>
	<datestamp>1266342960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's probably a good fight to fight, but remember it'll keep getting harder.

I was connected via VPN last night (all IP connectivity except the VPN itself runs over the VPN) from a hotel.  Pulled up Google Maps to look up some local destinations.  It offered me the option to use Firefox's location services.  Curious, I let it, and despite being logged in via VPN, it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet.

Still not exactly sure what it's doing to figure that out, but boy, that's scary...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably a good fight to fight , but remember it 'll keep getting harder .
I was connected via VPN last night ( all IP connectivity except the VPN itself runs over the VPN ) from a hotel .
Pulled up Google Maps to look up some local destinations .
It offered me the option to use Firefox 's location services .
Curious , I let it , and despite being logged in via VPN , it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet .
Still not exactly sure what it 's doing to figure that out , but boy , that 's scary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably a good fight to fight, but remember it'll keep getting harder.
I was connected via VPN last night (all IP connectivity except the VPN itself runs over the VPN) from a hotel.
Pulled up Google Maps to look up some local destinations.
It offered me the option to use Firefox's location services.
Curious, I let it, and despite being logged in via VPN, it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet.
Still not exactly sure what it's doing to figure that out, but boy, that's scary...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158336</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266349680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've yet to read state regulations that allow them to deny you service you refuse to fork over the SSN. If they refuse to give you service without the SSN then contact your state regulators and open a case.</p> </div><p>Geeze, thats all confrontational.  Nice plan if you like to fight.  If you don't, then just tell them you're an illegal alien.  You will get service, and you will have to make a security deposit.  Trust me, with illegals nearing 50\% in some localities, they are not going to freeze out that enormous fraction of an entire demographic.</p><p>One problem is the instant they hear you're "an illegal" they're going to try to transfer you to a spanish speaking rep, and/or try to sell you the spanish TV channel package.  Calmly explain you're an illegal alien from Canada or Ireland or Australia, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've yet to read state regulations that allow them to deny you service you refuse to fork over the SSN .
If they refuse to give you service without the SSN then contact your state regulators and open a case .
Geeze , thats all confrontational .
Nice plan if you like to fight .
If you do n't , then just tell them you 're an illegal alien .
You will get service , and you will have to make a security deposit .
Trust me , with illegals nearing 50 \ % in some localities , they are not going to freeze out that enormous fraction of an entire demographic.One problem is the instant they hear you 're " an illegal " they 're going to try to transfer you to a spanish speaking rep , and/or try to sell you the spanish TV channel package .
Calmly explain you 're an illegal alien from Canada or Ireland or Australia , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've yet to read state regulations that allow them to deny you service you refuse to fork over the SSN.
If they refuse to give you service without the SSN then contact your state regulators and open a case.
Geeze, thats all confrontational.
Nice plan if you like to fight.
If you don't, then just tell them you're an illegal alien.
You will get service, and you will have to make a security deposit.
Trust me, with illegals nearing 50\% in some localities, they are not going to freeze out that enormous fraction of an entire demographic.One problem is the instant they hear you're "an illegal" they're going to try to transfer you to a spanish speaking rep, and/or try to sell you the spanish TV channel package.
Calmly explain you're an illegal alien from Canada or Ireland or Australia, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156296</id>
	<title>There was a war?</title>
	<author>mandark1967</author>
	<datestamp>1266342420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn...If it wasn't so private maybe I'd have heard about it and fought...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn...If it was n't so private maybe I 'd have heard about it and fought.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn...If it wasn't so private maybe I'd have heard about it and fought...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646</id>
	<title>Try to skew their stats, if you must...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can neither accept being the statistics (and you seem to admit, that you can't put together a <em>rational</em> explanation for your aversion), nor avoid it, try screwing them up...

</p><p>I share the same syndrome as you (although, perhaps, to a lesser degree), so this is, what I do:
</p><ul> <li>Whenever asked for an address (except when I am expecting to receive something from the asker), I put in <tt>0 Privacy Drive, <em>MyTown, My State, MYZIP</em> </tt>. The credit-card verification, in reality, needs only the ZIP-code, so for "billing address" this is enough. And for the vendors knowing my ZIP-code is enough to know, what they need to know for their stats-gathering efforts, but robs them of the ability to mail me their "exciting new specials" later.</li>
<li>When signing-up for a store "discount card", in addition to the address-trick above (you can use a bogus name too), be sure to either share the same card (the store will give you multiple ones with the same number) with as many relatives/friends as you can. First you (well, the one of you, who gets to the store on the lucky day) will get the bonus-points discounts faster, and second, the stats will be sufficiently skewed by the multiple people and their preferences. This is somewhat bad for the store, so I, instead, just exchange the cards with others. The store still knows, that the <em>same</em> person bought A and B, they just don't know, who that person really was.</li>
<li>When forced to give out e-mail address online, use the <tt>VendorName@yourdomain</tt>. If the vendor abuses your trust (such as by automatically adding you to their e-mailing list), you can block that single address. If you don't have your own domain (how come?) you could use <tt>yourself<strong>+</strong> <em>Vendorname</em>@gmail.com</tt> for the same purpose (it is a shame, Yahoo! Mail does not support the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail\_address#Sub-addressing" title="wikipedia.org">sub-address</a> [wikipedia.org]). Unfortunately, many vendors' sites &mdash; including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as "invalid" &mdash; the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companies. This is where having your own domain is very useful.</li>
<li>When asked for personal data in person, ask to explain, why the information is needed. If the clerk says, oh, I just need it for the computer, ask, if it can be avoided, or given later. For example, some companies insist on creating a full record, when you are just asking for a quote... Don't get confrontational &mdash; just explain, that you'll give your last name and address, <em>when</em> you pick their bid. If they insist, give the address as described in item 1...</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can neither accept being the statistics ( and you seem to admit , that you ca n't put together a rational explanation for your aversion ) , nor avoid it , try screwing them up.. . I share the same syndrome as you ( although , perhaps , to a lesser degree ) , so this is , what I do : Whenever asked for an address ( except when I am expecting to receive something from the asker ) , I put in 0 Privacy Drive , MyTown , My State , MYZIP .
The credit-card verification , in reality , needs only the ZIP-code , so for " billing address " this is enough .
And for the vendors knowing my ZIP-code is enough to know , what they need to know for their stats-gathering efforts , but robs them of the ability to mail me their " exciting new specials " later .
When signing-up for a store " discount card " , in addition to the address-trick above ( you can use a bogus name too ) , be sure to either share the same card ( the store will give you multiple ones with the same number ) with as many relatives/friends as you can .
First you ( well , the one of you , who gets to the store on the lucky day ) will get the bonus-points discounts faster , and second , the stats will be sufficiently skewed by the multiple people and their preferences .
This is somewhat bad for the store , so I , instead , just exchange the cards with others .
The store still knows , that the same person bought A and B , they just do n't know , who that person really was .
When forced to give out e-mail address online , use the VendorName @ yourdomain .
If the vendor abuses your trust ( such as by automatically adding you to their e-mailing list ) , you can block that single address .
If you do n't have your own domain ( how come ?
) you could use yourself + Vendorname @ gmail.com for the same purpose ( it is a shame , Yahoo !
Mail does not support the sub-address [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Unfortunately , many vendors ' sites    including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as " invalid "    the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees , employed by these companies .
This is where having your own domain is very useful .
When asked for personal data in person , ask to explain , why the information is needed .
If the clerk says , oh , I just need it for the computer , ask , if it can be avoided , or given later .
For example , some companies insist on creating a full record , when you are just asking for a quote... Do n't get confrontational    just explain , that you 'll give your last name and address , when you pick their bid .
If they insist , give the address as described in item 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can neither accept being the statistics (and you seem to admit, that you can't put together a rational explanation for your aversion), nor avoid it, try screwing them up...

I share the same syndrome as you (although, perhaps, to a lesser degree), so this is, what I do:
 Whenever asked for an address (except when I am expecting to receive something from the asker), I put in 0 Privacy Drive, MyTown, My State, MYZIP .
The credit-card verification, in reality, needs only the ZIP-code, so for "billing address" this is enough.
And for the vendors knowing my ZIP-code is enough to know, what they need to know for their stats-gathering efforts, but robs them of the ability to mail me their "exciting new specials" later.
When signing-up for a store "discount card", in addition to the address-trick above (you can use a bogus name too), be sure to either share the same card (the store will give you multiple ones with the same number) with as many relatives/friends as you can.
First you (well, the one of you, who gets to the store on the lucky day) will get the bonus-points discounts faster, and second, the stats will be sufficiently skewed by the multiple people and their preferences.
This is somewhat bad for the store, so I, instead, just exchange the cards with others.
The store still knows, that the same person bought A and B, they just don't know, who that person really was.
When forced to give out e-mail address online, use the VendorName@yourdomain.
If the vendor abuses your trust (such as by automatically adding you to their e-mailing list), you can block that single address.
If you don't have your own domain (how come?
) you could use yourself+ Vendorname@gmail.com for the same purpose (it is a shame, Yahoo!
Mail does not support the sub-address [wikipedia.org]).
Unfortunately, many vendors' sites — including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as "invalid" — the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companies.
This is where having your own domain is very useful.
When asked for personal data in person, ask to explain, why the information is needed.
If the clerk says, oh, I just need it for the computer, ask, if it can be avoided, or given later.
For example, some companies insist on creating a full record, when you are just asking for a quote... Don't get confrontational — just explain, that you'll give your last name and address, when you pick their bid.
If they insist, give the address as described in item 1...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157080</id>
	<title>Forget about it.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1266345120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy is overrated.  I think it's hilarious when public celebrities say "we expect people to respect our privacy during these difficult times".  They certainly were happy to enjoy the benefits of public life, well lack of privacy is the price.  Likewise with the internet and open availability of information.  It's great that we're all sharing and all kinds of information is out in the open, but it also means a lack of privacy.  You take the good with the bad.  You can't have you cake and eat it too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is overrated .
I think it 's hilarious when public celebrities say " we expect people to respect our privacy during these difficult times " .
They certainly were happy to enjoy the benefits of public life , well lack of privacy is the price .
Likewise with the internet and open availability of information .
It 's great that we 're all sharing and all kinds of information is out in the open , but it also means a lack of privacy .
You take the good with the bad .
You ca n't have you cake and eat it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is overrated.
I think it's hilarious when public celebrities say "we expect people to respect our privacy during these difficult times".
They certainly were happy to enjoy the benefits of public life, well lack of privacy is the price.
Likewise with the internet and open availability of information.
It's great that we're all sharing and all kinds of information is out in the open, but it also means a lack of privacy.
You take the good with the bad.
You can't have you cake and eat it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158494</id>
	<title>Don't give out information you don't want out</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1266350340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's simple as that. They don't NEED your SSN - that is only used to bring up your credit score and they will offer you services accordingly. I have opened bank accounts with invalid SSN's, non-existing phone numbers and bad addresses. They usually go get the manager or another senior member and all they say is: can't find a credit history on you, we will only give you $300 limit on your credit cards. Some banks (Bank of America) and companies (Geico, AllState) will simply refuse service saying you don't have a long enough credit history but there are others that will accept you.</p><p>Then again, those are the only institutions that ask for your SSN. You can get most membership/discount cards with completely bogus information. They don't require the information but the drone at the front office doesn't know that and probably not even the manager at the store. Once you get to their legal department they will say, that's ok.</p><p>I found all this out because for a while I didn't have an SSN number (resident alien). I even got a drivers license without a valid SSN. Usually all they require is an extra proof of identification or a bill sent to the address you specified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple as that .
They do n't NEED your SSN - that is only used to bring up your credit score and they will offer you services accordingly .
I have opened bank accounts with invalid SSN 's , non-existing phone numbers and bad addresses .
They usually go get the manager or another senior member and all they say is : ca n't find a credit history on you , we will only give you $ 300 limit on your credit cards .
Some banks ( Bank of America ) and companies ( Geico , AllState ) will simply refuse service saying you do n't have a long enough credit history but there are others that will accept you.Then again , those are the only institutions that ask for your SSN .
You can get most membership/discount cards with completely bogus information .
They do n't require the information but the drone at the front office does n't know that and probably not even the manager at the store .
Once you get to their legal department they will say , that 's ok.I found all this out because for a while I did n't have an SSN number ( resident alien ) .
I even got a drivers license without a valid SSN .
Usually all they require is an extra proof of identification or a bill sent to the address you specified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple as that.
They don't NEED your SSN - that is only used to bring up your credit score and they will offer you services accordingly.
I have opened bank accounts with invalid SSN's, non-existing phone numbers and bad addresses.
They usually go get the manager or another senior member and all they say is: can't find a credit history on you, we will only give you $300 limit on your credit cards.
Some banks (Bank of America) and companies (Geico, AllState) will simply refuse service saying you don't have a long enough credit history but there are others that will accept you.Then again, those are the only institutions that ask for your SSN.
You can get most membership/discount cards with completely bogus information.
They don't require the information but the drone at the front office doesn't know that and probably not even the manager at the store.
Once you get to their legal department they will say, that's ok.I found all this out because for a while I didn't have an SSN number (resident alien).
I even got a drivers license without a valid SSN.
Usually all they require is an extra proof of identification or a bill sent to the address you specified.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160278</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266315000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yikes, that whole "transparent society" notion is so horribly flawed and counter to the human experience at every level.</p><p>Are email addresses private?  Not really.  Did you catch that other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. thread regarding the staggering increase in the volume of malicious spam.  So when exactly will the cost of this exposure be "easily reversible"?  When exactly will the vermin of society become sated on the free information of ours that they can take and use to their advantage?  The answer is *never*.</p><p>Privacy is a battleground.  It always will be.  Surrendering all notions of privacy and expecting it to all be okay is like surrendering the notion of your body's immune system and hoping that bacteria and other parasites won't wipe you out.  AIDS is the immunological equivalent of the notion of transparent privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yikes , that whole " transparent society " notion is so horribly flawed and counter to the human experience at every level.Are email addresses private ?
Not really .
Did you catch that other / .
thread regarding the staggering increase in the volume of malicious spam .
So when exactly will the cost of this exposure be " easily reversible " ?
When exactly will the vermin of society become sated on the free information of ours that they can take and use to their advantage ?
The answer is * never * .Privacy is a battleground .
It always will be .
Surrendering all notions of privacy and expecting it to all be okay is like surrendering the notion of your body 's immune system and hoping that bacteria and other parasites wo n't wipe you out .
AIDS is the immunological equivalent of the notion of transparent privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yikes, that whole "transparent society" notion is so horribly flawed and counter to the human experience at every level.Are email addresses private?
Not really.
Did you catch that other /.
thread regarding the staggering increase in the volume of malicious spam.
So when exactly will the cost of this exposure be "easily reversible"?
When exactly will the vermin of society become sated on the free information of ours that they can take and use to their advantage?
The answer is *never*.Privacy is a battleground.
It always will be.
Surrendering all notions of privacy and expecting it to all be okay is like surrendering the notion of your body's immune system and hoping that bacteria and other parasites won't wipe you out.
AIDS is the immunological equivalent of the notion of transparent privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157012</id>
	<title>norm?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1266344880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I just too paranoid? Is privacy dead? Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore</p></div><p>You know, I'm really not sure that privacy was ever really the norm...</p><p>Sure, for a while there we had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  And I think that was probably a good thing.  But I also think that was largely an aberration.</p><p>Look back a few hundred years...  We were living in relatively small, tightly-knit groups.  Fine, maybe some guy on the other side of the planet couldn't Google you and come up with your life history...  But it wasn't like you were keeping a whole lot of secrets from your neighbors either.</p><p>As it is, I think privacy is probably dead and buried at this point.  But I'm not sure that it will matter too much to your average human being.</p><p>At this point I don't think there's any going back to a time before tracking cookies and data mining and whatever else.  The fact that you bought an inflatable sheep is going to be logged somewhere...  And some advertising robot somewhere is going to dig up that bit of information...  And some night when you're staying at a hotel on a business trip the DVR will helpfully suggest <i>Barnyard Bondage III</i> for your viewing pleasure.  And I don't think this is going to go away.  It's just far too pervasive, and far too useful.  Not just to businesses either...  If I'm going to be served ads, I'd rather they're actually relevant.</p><p>But I don't think you're going to see a whole lot of social impact from this.  I don't think you'll see prospective employers digging through your Amazon purchase history.  Largely because that's a double-edged blade.  I'm sure there'll be various laws, regulations, and taboos developed to protect your privacy in social situations - because folks aren't going to want you to dig up their skeletons any more than you want them digging up yours.</p><p>Government will, of course, abuse anything and everything it can.  This information will be used for profiling or something.  But it isn't like that isn't happening already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I just too paranoid ?
Is privacy dead ?
Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymoreYou know , I 'm really not sure that privacy was ever really the norm...Sure , for a while there we had a reasonable expectation of privacy .
And I think that was probably a good thing .
But I also think that was largely an aberration.Look back a few hundred years... We were living in relatively small , tightly-knit groups .
Fine , maybe some guy on the other side of the planet could n't Google you and come up with your life history... But it was n't like you were keeping a whole lot of secrets from your neighbors either.As it is , I think privacy is probably dead and buried at this point .
But I 'm not sure that it will matter too much to your average human being.At this point I do n't think there 's any going back to a time before tracking cookies and data mining and whatever else .
The fact that you bought an inflatable sheep is going to be logged somewhere... And some advertising robot somewhere is going to dig up that bit of information... And some night when you 're staying at a hotel on a business trip the DVR will helpfully suggest Barnyard Bondage III for your viewing pleasure .
And I do n't think this is going to go away .
It 's just far too pervasive , and far too useful .
Not just to businesses either... If I 'm going to be served ads , I 'd rather they 're actually relevant.But I do n't think you 're going to see a whole lot of social impact from this .
I do n't think you 'll see prospective employers digging through your Amazon purchase history .
Largely because that 's a double-edged blade .
I 'm sure there 'll be various laws , regulations , and taboos developed to protect your privacy in social situations - because folks are n't going to want you to dig up their skeletons any more than you want them digging up yours.Government will , of course , abuse anything and everything it can .
This information will be used for profiling or something .
But it is n't like that is n't happening already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I just too paranoid?
Is privacy dead?
Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymoreYou know, I'm really not sure that privacy was ever really the norm...Sure, for a while there we had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
And I think that was probably a good thing.
But I also think that was largely an aberration.Look back a few hundred years...  We were living in relatively small, tightly-knit groups.
Fine, maybe some guy on the other side of the planet couldn't Google you and come up with your life history...  But it wasn't like you were keeping a whole lot of secrets from your neighbors either.As it is, I think privacy is probably dead and buried at this point.
But I'm not sure that it will matter too much to your average human being.At this point I don't think there's any going back to a time before tracking cookies and data mining and whatever else.
The fact that you bought an inflatable sheep is going to be logged somewhere...  And some advertising robot somewhere is going to dig up that bit of information...  And some night when you're staying at a hotel on a business trip the DVR will helpfully suggest Barnyard Bondage III for your viewing pleasure.
And I don't think this is going to go away.
It's just far too pervasive, and far too useful.
Not just to businesses either...  If I'm going to be served ads, I'd rather they're actually relevant.But I don't think you're going to see a whole lot of social impact from this.
I don't think you'll see prospective employers digging through your Amazon purchase history.
Largely because that's a double-edged blade.
I'm sure there'll be various laws, regulations, and taboos developed to protect your privacy in social situations - because folks aren't going to want you to dig up their skeletons any more than you want them digging up yours.Government will, of course, abuse anything and everything it can.
This information will be used for profiling or something.
But it isn't like that isn't happening already.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31173056</id>
	<title>Alternatively...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265052060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Live someplace else. For all the liberty and freedom Americans scream about in an abstract way, they seem to have very little in real life.</p><p>Take Canada for instance, we have some great Privacy Laws. Government might have a bit more access, but they also have to follow some pretty strict rules (unless you just paranoid about government conspiracy or something, in which case see a doctor). People can collect all sorts of information, and use it. They can't share it or release it however without your express permission.</p><p>I would take government collecting information over a corporation any day of the week. Government has oversight, and accountability. Corporations try to make as much profit as quickly as possible.</p><p>Anyway in Canada you have protections, and if you think someone is infringing your privacy you can take them to court. The courts have also been pro-privacy and punish those who don't follow the rules severely. Bottom line anyway is that you don't have to provide your information, you can choose to not use the service if you don't like their privacy policy. Having said that, in Canada at least, a company can do or say whatever it likes on paper, or how it collects the information, it does not however excuse them from the actual law. Just like I can't make a contract with someone to murder them, and then when I am in court go, "hey look, no its OK, I have this contract, where the user said it was OK if I murdered him!". Doesn't work that way. We also have "Privacy Commissioners" in Canada you can send your complaint to for them to make a ruling on. They interpret the law, and the courts generally confer/agree with their findings (though not always).</p><p>However when it comes to privacy across political boundries it gets a bit tricky. The US Patriot Act caused some "difficulties" in that it basically allows for the sharing of personal information, and the US and Canadian government come into contact frequently and share information. Over the internet across multiple countries, where cyberspace may only be defined by where the physical servers exist it becomes ever more tricky. What are the privacy laws there? What if the servers span several areas with different laws? Google and Facebook surely fall into this category. Look at online gambling for instance. In most of the USA it is illegal. Guess how many people do it? A lot. All the servers are located in Europe or in some Native reserve which are exempt. It is kind of funny now many States are looking to legalize it now, not because they believe it is morally acceptable, but because they know there is little they can do about it, and they what their cut of the tax revenue. However the usual rule for a company is (like Google found out) you have to follow whatever laws exist in the country you do buisness in. So bottom line it comes down to your country having the laws to protect you, and you yourself being aware and making the right decisions about your own information and what you wish to share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Live someplace else .
For all the liberty and freedom Americans scream about in an abstract way , they seem to have very little in real life.Take Canada for instance , we have some great Privacy Laws .
Government might have a bit more access , but they also have to follow some pretty strict rules ( unless you just paranoid about government conspiracy or something , in which case see a doctor ) .
People can collect all sorts of information , and use it .
They ca n't share it or release it however without your express permission.I would take government collecting information over a corporation any day of the week .
Government has oversight , and accountability .
Corporations try to make as much profit as quickly as possible.Anyway in Canada you have protections , and if you think someone is infringing your privacy you can take them to court .
The courts have also been pro-privacy and punish those who do n't follow the rules severely .
Bottom line anyway is that you do n't have to provide your information , you can choose to not use the service if you do n't like their privacy policy .
Having said that , in Canada at least , a company can do or say whatever it likes on paper , or how it collects the information , it does not however excuse them from the actual law .
Just like I ca n't make a contract with someone to murder them , and then when I am in court go , " hey look , no its OK , I have this contract , where the user said it was OK if I murdered him ! " .
Does n't work that way .
We also have " Privacy Commissioners " in Canada you can send your complaint to for them to make a ruling on .
They interpret the law , and the courts generally confer/agree with their findings ( though not always ) .However when it comes to privacy across political boundries it gets a bit tricky .
The US Patriot Act caused some " difficulties " in that it basically allows for the sharing of personal information , and the US and Canadian government come into contact frequently and share information .
Over the internet across multiple countries , where cyberspace may only be defined by where the physical servers exist it becomes ever more tricky .
What are the privacy laws there ?
What if the servers span several areas with different laws ?
Google and Facebook surely fall into this category .
Look at online gambling for instance .
In most of the USA it is illegal .
Guess how many people do it ?
A lot .
All the servers are located in Europe or in some Native reserve which are exempt .
It is kind of funny now many States are looking to legalize it now , not because they believe it is morally acceptable , but because they know there is little they can do about it , and they what their cut of the tax revenue .
However the usual rule for a company is ( like Google found out ) you have to follow whatever laws exist in the country you do buisness in .
So bottom line it comes down to your country having the laws to protect you , and you yourself being aware and making the right decisions about your own information and what you wish to share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live someplace else.
For all the liberty and freedom Americans scream about in an abstract way, they seem to have very little in real life.Take Canada for instance, we have some great Privacy Laws.
Government might have a bit more access, but they also have to follow some pretty strict rules (unless you just paranoid about government conspiracy or something, in which case see a doctor).
People can collect all sorts of information, and use it.
They can't share it or release it however without your express permission.I would take government collecting information over a corporation any day of the week.
Government has oversight, and accountability.
Corporations try to make as much profit as quickly as possible.Anyway in Canada you have protections, and if you think someone is infringing your privacy you can take them to court.
The courts have also been pro-privacy and punish those who don't follow the rules severely.
Bottom line anyway is that you don't have to provide your information, you can choose to not use the service if you don't like their privacy policy.
Having said that, in Canada at least, a company can do or say whatever it likes on paper, or how it collects the information, it does not however excuse them from the actual law.
Just like I can't make a contract with someone to murder them, and then when I am in court go, "hey look, no its OK, I have this contract, where the user said it was OK if I murdered him!".
Doesn't work that way.
We also have "Privacy Commissioners" in Canada you can send your complaint to for them to make a ruling on.
They interpret the law, and the courts generally confer/agree with their findings (though not always).However when it comes to privacy across political boundries it gets a bit tricky.
The US Patriot Act caused some "difficulties" in that it basically allows for the sharing of personal information, and the US and Canadian government come into contact frequently and share information.
Over the internet across multiple countries, where cyberspace may only be defined by where the physical servers exist it becomes ever more tricky.
What are the privacy laws there?
What if the servers span several areas with different laws?
Google and Facebook surely fall into this category.
Look at online gambling for instance.
In most of the USA it is illegal.
Guess how many people do it?
A lot.
All the servers are located in Europe or in some Native reserve which are exempt.
It is kind of funny now many States are looking to legalize it now, not because they believe it is morally acceptable, but because they know there is little they can do about it, and they what their cut of the tax revenue.
However the usual rule for a company is (like Google found out) you have to follow whatever laws exist in the country you do buisness in.
So bottom line it comes down to your country having the laws to protect you, and you yourself being aware and making the right decisions about your own information and what you wish to share.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156750</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>BlackCreek</author>
	<datestamp>1266344040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy. Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net. Embrace it. Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.</p></div><p>Sure. Until someone uses that to steal your identity, and all of a sudden you will need to prove to N different government, banking and credit institutions that you are not a fraudster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density , instead of obscurity through privacy .
Billions of people on this earth , nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net .
Embrace it .
Eventually , if enough personal data gets out there , it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.Sure .
Until someone uses that to steal your identity , and all of a sudden you will need to prove to N different government , banking and credit institutions that you are not a fraudster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy.
Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net.
Embrace it.
Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.Sure.
Until someone uses that to steal your identity, and all of a sudden you will need to prove to N different government, banking and credit institutions that you are not a fraudster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160614</id>
	<title>Re:are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266316680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you in not caring if statistics are collected about what I watch as long as they're not identifiable as mine.  In other words, if I watch some otter porn, I don't want to start seeing PlayOtter advertisements show up in my mailbox.  I don't want there to be records that my mother-in-law can use against me at Thanksgiving dinner.</p><p>The real problem is not the harmless collection of some anonymous marketing data.  No, the problem is that the onus shouldn't be upon the citizen to protect his privacy from the government, corporations, and other citizens.  Maximum privacy should be the default, with personal information being completely owned by the individual.  Opting out of email and mail and phone calls should never be the case.</p><p>I will almost always vote for the politicians who understand and will likely legislate the importance of privacy.  Maybe I don't care about exposing my television watching habits.  But do I care about having my web surfing habits exposed?  Do I care about having my financial details shared with others?  History of the abuse of private data has shown that the slope is horribly slippery.  The slippery slope should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.</p><p>To quote yar's post above:</p><blockquote><div><p>Check out Daniel Solove's work- here's a good start.<br>"I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy<br><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=998565&amp;rec=1&amp;srcabs=667622" title="ssrn.com">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=998565&amp;rec=1&amp;srcabs=667622</a> [ssrn.com]</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you in not caring if statistics are collected about what I watch as long as they 're not identifiable as mine .
In other words , if I watch some otter porn , I do n't want to start seeing PlayOtter advertisements show up in my mailbox .
I do n't want there to be records that my mother-in-law can use against me at Thanksgiving dinner.The real problem is not the harmless collection of some anonymous marketing data .
No , the problem is that the onus should n't be upon the citizen to protect his privacy from the government , corporations , and other citizens .
Maximum privacy should be the default , with personal information being completely owned by the individual .
Opting out of email and mail and phone calls should never be the case.I will almost always vote for the politicians who understand and will likely legislate the importance of privacy .
Maybe I do n't care about exposing my television watching habits .
But do I care about having my web surfing habits exposed ?
Do I care about having my financial details shared with others ?
History of the abuse of private data has shown that the slope is horribly slippery .
The slippery slope should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.To quote yar 's post above : Check out Daniel Solove 's work- here 's a good start .
" I 've got nothing to hide " and other misunderstandings of privacyhttp : //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ? abstract \ _id = 998565&amp;rec = 1&amp;srcabs = 667622 [ ssrn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you in not caring if statistics are collected about what I watch as long as they're not identifiable as mine.
In other words, if I watch some otter porn, I don't want to start seeing PlayOtter advertisements show up in my mailbox.
I don't want there to be records that my mother-in-law can use against me at Thanksgiving dinner.The real problem is not the harmless collection of some anonymous marketing data.
No, the problem is that the onus shouldn't be upon the citizen to protect his privacy from the government, corporations, and other citizens.
Maximum privacy should be the default, with personal information being completely owned by the individual.
Opting out of email and mail and phone calls should never be the case.I will almost always vote for the politicians who understand and will likely legislate the importance of privacy.
Maybe I don't care about exposing my television watching habits.
But do I care about having my web surfing habits exposed?
Do I care about having my financial details shared with others?
History of the abuse of private data has shown that the slope is horribly slippery.
The slippery slope should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.To quote yar's post above:Check out Daniel Solove's work- here's a good start.
"I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacyhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=998565&amp;rec=1&amp;srcabs=667622 [ssrn.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157374</id>
	<title>Re:No SELECT is necessary.</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1266346020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IS\_INTERESTING(823648) surely returns true since today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IS \ _INTERESTING ( 823648 ) surely returns true since today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IS\_INTERESTING(823648) surely returns true since today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360</id>
	<title>are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so somebody knows all the tv shows you watch. ok, so fucking what?</p><p>the question is not that somebody has profiled your viewing habits, but that you consider such effluvia about you to be some sort of vital intrinsic part of your identity, worth protecting, worth fighting for, or worth even caring about</p><p>i don't know about you, but when making a list of private facts about my identity, what i watch on tv doesn't even remotely enter the realm of relevancy. and no i'm not some "i don't watch tv" weirdo, i watch a lot of tv</p><p>i just don't care if anyone knows what i watch, because i don't particularly consider that information about myself remotely valuable or interesting</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so somebody knows all the tv shows you watch .
ok , so fucking what ? the question is not that somebody has profiled your viewing habits , but that you consider such effluvia about you to be some sort of vital intrinsic part of your identity , worth protecting , worth fighting for , or worth even caring abouti do n't know about you , but when making a list of private facts about my identity , what i watch on tv does n't even remotely enter the realm of relevancy .
and no i 'm not some " i do n't watch tv " weirdo , i watch a lot of tvi just do n't care if anyone knows what i watch , because i do n't particularly consider that information about myself remotely valuable or interesting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so somebody knows all the tv shows you watch.
ok, so fucking what?the question is not that somebody has profiled your viewing habits, but that you consider such effluvia about you to be some sort of vital intrinsic part of your identity, worth protecting, worth fighting for, or worth even caring abouti don't know about you, but when making a list of private facts about my identity, what i watch on tv doesn't even remotely enter the realm of relevancy.
and no i'm not some "i don't watch tv" weirdo, i watch a lot of tvi just don't care if anyone knows what i watch, because i don't particularly consider that information about myself remotely valuable or interesting</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156776</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You surrender only because you cannot win.</p><p>Try NOT agreeing to give up your privacy.  Life will get so difficult and doing business will be such a pain in the ass that you regret it right away... \_</p><p>And if you don't, well, there's always gitmo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You surrender only because you can not win.Try NOT agreeing to give up your privacy .
Life will get so difficult and doing business will be such a pain in the ass that you regret it right away... \ _And if you do n't , well , there 's always gitmo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You surrender only because you cannot win.Try NOT agreeing to give up your privacy.
Life will get so difficult and doing business will be such a pain in the ass that you regret it right away... \_And if you don't, well, there's always gitmo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158718</id>
	<title>Flash Cookies</title>
	<author>adrianturner</author>
	<datestamp>1266351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To automatically get rid of these use the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">BetterPrivacy</a> [mozilla.org] add-on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To automatically get rid of these use the BetterPrivacy [ mozilla.org ] add-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To automatically get rid of these use the BetterPrivacy [mozilla.org] add-on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159180</id>
	<title>statistical privacy thru multiple identities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266353160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;"That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse. Am I just too paranoid? Is privacy dead?"</p><p>In such an environment the only real solution (assuming reform is impossible) is to maintain multiple identities in such a way as to buy a measure of privacy in leveraging the greater degrees of freedom afforded by said multiple identities.</p><p>Maybe we're not seeing the forest for the trees.  While we are concerned about Facebook-Myspace-Buzz "automatic" sharing of friends and followers being an invasion of privacy and ad-driven power grab for your personal communication transaction metadata, maybe we ought, instead, to be concerned with designing a careful architecture of our stable of personal sock puppets.</p><p>
&nbsp; - dredeyedick</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (or is it?)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-|</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " That medical firm did n't really need my SSN , but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse .
Am I just too paranoid ?
Is privacy dead ?
" In such an environment the only real solution ( assuming reform is impossible ) is to maintain multiple identities in such a way as to buy a measure of privacy in leveraging the greater degrees of freedom afforded by said multiple identities.Maybe we 're not seeing the forest for the trees .
While we are concerned about Facebook-Myspace-Buzz " automatic " sharing of friends and followers being an invasion of privacy and ad-driven power grab for your personal communication transaction metadata , maybe we ought , instead , to be concerned with designing a careful architecture of our stable of personal sock puppets .
  - dredeyedick                                                               ( or is it ?
) : - |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;"That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse.
Am I just too paranoid?
Is privacy dead?
"In such an environment the only real solution (assuming reform is impossible) is to maintain multiple identities in such a way as to buy a measure of privacy in leveraging the greater degrees of freedom afforded by said multiple identities.Maybe we're not seeing the forest for the trees.
While we are concerned about Facebook-Myspace-Buzz "automatic" sharing of friends and followers being an invasion of privacy and ad-driven power grab for your personal communication transaction metadata, maybe we ought, instead, to be concerned with designing a careful architecture of our stable of personal sock puppets.
  - dredeyedick
                                                              (or is it?
) :-|</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161538</id>
	<title>Consolidate Privacy Invasion or Diversify?</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1266320880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comments about the GP sacrificing his privacy for entertainment conveinience got me thinking a little bit....even making this sacrifices what is the best way to go about them?  Is it better to give a few companies access to a whole lot of information or is it better to give a bunch of companies little pieces of your information?</p><p>For instance, you can have AT&amp;T Uverse TV, AT&amp;T Internet, AT&amp;T Home Phone, AT&amp;T Wireless Internet, and AT&amp;T Cellular Service.  From there you can use Google Search, Google Docs, Google Maps, Google Mail, Google Buzz, Google Finance, Google Health, and Google Wave. (If you are concerned about your privacy, you probably aren't using things like Google health, but you get the idea).  Combined, AT&amp;T and Google will know just about everything about your life.  Alternatively, you can use DirectTV, Time Warner cable internet, AT&amp;T Home phone, Verizon Wireless internet, and US Cellular phone service.  From there you can use Bing Search, Google Docs, Mapquest, Facebook, and Quickbooks.  Each of these companies knows a little slice about your life.</p><p>By limiting the number of companies with information about yourself, you are taking away several possible breaches/misuse of your data.  If one of those two ARE breached/misuse your information.....it is going to be really big.  On the other hand, by diversifying you increase the risk that your data will be misused, but any single instance is going to be less severe than if they had ALL of your data.</p><p>A good "Real Life" parallel is how you interact with your friends.  Do you have 1 or 2 people that are your closest confidants that know just about every dirty little secret of your life, or do you have the friend you tell sexual secrets about, the friend you discuss your finances with, the friend you confide your insecurities and weaknesses in, the friend that you talk to about your health problems, and the friend that you express your concerns about all of your other friends to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comments about the GP sacrificing his privacy for entertainment conveinience got me thinking a little bit....even making this sacrifices what is the best way to go about them ?
Is it better to give a few companies access to a whole lot of information or is it better to give a bunch of companies little pieces of your information ? For instance , you can have AT&amp;T Uverse TV , AT&amp;T Internet , AT&amp;T Home Phone , AT&amp;T Wireless Internet , and AT&amp;T Cellular Service .
From there you can use Google Search , Google Docs , Google Maps , Google Mail , Google Buzz , Google Finance , Google Health , and Google Wave .
( If you are concerned about your privacy , you probably are n't using things like Google health , but you get the idea ) .
Combined , AT&amp;T and Google will know just about everything about your life .
Alternatively , you can use DirectTV , Time Warner cable internet , AT&amp;T Home phone , Verizon Wireless internet , and US Cellular phone service .
From there you can use Bing Search , Google Docs , Mapquest , Facebook , and Quickbooks .
Each of these companies knows a little slice about your life.By limiting the number of companies with information about yourself , you are taking away several possible breaches/misuse of your data .
If one of those two ARE breached/misuse your information.....it is going to be really big .
On the other hand , by diversifying you increase the risk that your data will be misused , but any single instance is going to be less severe than if they had ALL of your data.A good " Real Life " parallel is how you interact with your friends .
Do you have 1 or 2 people that are your closest confidants that know just about every dirty little secret of your life , or do you have the friend you tell sexual secrets about , the friend you discuss your finances with , the friend you confide your insecurities and weaknesses in , the friend that you talk to about your health problems , and the friend that you express your concerns about all of your other friends to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comments about the GP sacrificing his privacy for entertainment conveinience got me thinking a little bit....even making this sacrifices what is the best way to go about them?
Is it better to give a few companies access to a whole lot of information or is it better to give a bunch of companies little pieces of your information?For instance, you can have AT&amp;T Uverse TV, AT&amp;T Internet, AT&amp;T Home Phone, AT&amp;T Wireless Internet, and AT&amp;T Cellular Service.
From there you can use Google Search, Google Docs, Google Maps, Google Mail, Google Buzz, Google Finance, Google Health, and Google Wave.
(If you are concerned about your privacy, you probably aren't using things like Google health, but you get the idea).
Combined, AT&amp;T and Google will know just about everything about your life.
Alternatively, you can use DirectTV, Time Warner cable internet, AT&amp;T Home phone, Verizon Wireless internet, and US Cellular phone service.
From there you can use Bing Search, Google Docs, Mapquest, Facebook, and Quickbooks.
Each of these companies knows a little slice about your life.By limiting the number of companies with information about yourself, you are taking away several possible breaches/misuse of your data.
If one of those two ARE breached/misuse your information.....it is going to be really big.
On the other hand, by diversifying you increase the risk that your data will be misused, but any single instance is going to be less severe than if they had ALL of your data.A good "Real Life" parallel is how you interact with your friends.
Do you have 1 or 2 people that are your closest confidants that know just about every dirty little secret of your life, or do you have the friend you tell sexual secrets about, the friend you discuss your finances with, the friend you confide your insecurities and weaknesses in, the friend that you talk to about your health problems, and the friend that you express your concerns about all of your other friends to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156384</id>
	<title>Just Because You're Paranoid...</title>
	<author>rebmemeR</author>
	<datestamp>1266342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time you take some action to protect your privacy, someone does a +1 on your suspectability index in their database.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time you take some action to protect your privacy , someone does a + 1 on your suspectability index in their database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time you take some action to protect your privacy, someone does a +1 on your suspectability index in their database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are agreeing to give up your privacy. You are not losing - you surrendered.</p></div><p>Indeed.  I like his whining about them not needing his SSN.  <b>Then why did you give it to them?</b>  Phone and cable service is regulated in most states.  I've yet to read state regulations that allow them to deny you service you refuse to fork over the SSN.  If they refuse to give you service without the SSN then contact your state regulators and open a case.
</p><p>I did this here in New York with Verizon and the public service commission compelled them to turn on my service within two business days of my filing a complaint.  All they can do is ask you for a deposit -- the law usually requires them to return it to you after a certain number of timely payments (usually a year's worth) have been made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are agreeing to give up your privacy .
You are not losing - you surrendered.Indeed .
I like his whining about them not needing his SSN .
Then why did you give it to them ?
Phone and cable service is regulated in most states .
I 've yet to read state regulations that allow them to deny you service you refuse to fork over the SSN .
If they refuse to give you service without the SSN then contact your state regulators and open a case .
I did this here in New York with Verizon and the public service commission compelled them to turn on my service within two business days of my filing a complaint .
All they can do is ask you for a deposit -- the law usually requires them to return it to you after a certain number of timely payments ( usually a year 's worth ) have been made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are agreeing to give up your privacy.
You are not losing - you surrendered.Indeed.
I like his whining about them not needing his SSN.
Then why did you give it to them?
Phone and cable service is regulated in most states.
I've yet to read state regulations that allow them to deny you service you refuse to fork over the SSN.
If they refuse to give you service without the SSN then contact your state regulators and open a case.
I did this here in New York with Verizon and the public service commission compelled them to turn on my service within two business days of my filing a complaint.
All they can do is ask you for a deposit -- the law usually requires them to return it to you after a certain number of timely payments (usually a year's worth) have been made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158594</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy? Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266350640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why do you want all that privacy online?<br>What makes it so different from real life?<br>Do you go everywhere with gloves or cleaning your finger prints?</p></div></blockquote><p>If the real world were filled with robots taking and archiving all fingerprints they can find, I would.</p><blockquote><div><p>Do you clean your foot steps?</p></div></blockquote><p>See above</p><blockquote><div><p>Do you erase the memories of people you meet or anyone you cross on the street?</p></div></blockquote><p>No need. First, people are known to have a very bad memory. Unless the street is otherwise very empty, most people won't even notice me. I'm pretty sure that if directly after I was walking a crowded street you'd show the people a photo of me and asked them if they've seen me, 99\% of them would say no, or say that they don't know. And a day later, you'd probably be hard pressed to find a single person who has seen me. Things would be different if I would have a particularly eye-catching appearance, e.g. if I'd color my hair in bright, unnatural colors, or were wearing pink clothes. Which I don't, and I don't for the same reason most people don't: I don't want to attract attention. Looking and behaving normal is a very effective way to maintain privacy in the public.</p><p>Second, the people you meet on the street are normal people, not stalkers who follow you and record everything you do. You don't care too much about the random person remembering you. However you'd not like a stalker following you all the time, and taking notes what you do. And that's the same thing online: I know that about every single web server keeps logs where, besides other things, my IP is recorded. I don't care, and don't consider that a breach of privacy, because I expect they won't publish or sell that data. However, I <em>do</em> consider advertisers tracking me as breach of privacy, or things like Google Analytics. They are not the equivalent of the people you meet on the street, they are the equivalent to the stalker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you want all that privacy online ? What makes it so different from real life ? Do you go everywhere with gloves or cleaning your finger prints ? If the real world were filled with robots taking and archiving all fingerprints they can find , I would.Do you clean your foot steps ? See aboveDo you erase the memories of people you meet or anyone you cross on the street ? No need .
First , people are known to have a very bad memory .
Unless the street is otherwise very empty , most people wo n't even notice me .
I 'm pretty sure that if directly after I was walking a crowded street you 'd show the people a photo of me and asked them if they 've seen me , 99 \ % of them would say no , or say that they do n't know .
And a day later , you 'd probably be hard pressed to find a single person who has seen me .
Things would be different if I would have a particularly eye-catching appearance , e.g .
if I 'd color my hair in bright , unnatural colors , or were wearing pink clothes .
Which I do n't , and I do n't for the same reason most people do n't : I do n't want to attract attention .
Looking and behaving normal is a very effective way to maintain privacy in the public.Second , the people you meet on the street are normal people , not stalkers who follow you and record everything you do .
You do n't care too much about the random person remembering you .
However you 'd not like a stalker following you all the time , and taking notes what you do .
And that 's the same thing online : I know that about every single web server keeps logs where , besides other things , my IP is recorded .
I do n't care , and do n't consider that a breach of privacy , because I expect they wo n't publish or sell that data .
However , I do consider advertisers tracking me as breach of privacy , or things like Google Analytics .
They are not the equivalent of the people you meet on the street , they are the equivalent to the stalker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you want all that privacy online?What makes it so different from real life?Do you go everywhere with gloves or cleaning your finger prints?If the real world were filled with robots taking and archiving all fingerprints they can find, I would.Do you clean your foot steps?See aboveDo you erase the memories of people you meet or anyone you cross on the street?No need.
First, people are known to have a very bad memory.
Unless the street is otherwise very empty, most people won't even notice me.
I'm pretty sure that if directly after I was walking a crowded street you'd show the people a photo of me and asked them if they've seen me, 99\% of them would say no, or say that they don't know.
And a day later, you'd probably be hard pressed to find a single person who has seen me.
Things would be different if I would have a particularly eye-catching appearance, e.g.
if I'd color my hair in bright, unnatural colors, or were wearing pink clothes.
Which I don't, and I don't for the same reason most people don't: I don't want to attract attention.
Looking and behaving normal is a very effective way to maintain privacy in the public.Second, the people you meet on the street are normal people, not stalkers who follow you and record everything you do.
You don't care too much about the random person remembering you.
However you'd not like a stalker following you all the time, and taking notes what you do.
And that's the same thing online: I know that about every single web server keeps logs where, besides other things, my IP is recorded.
I don't care, and don't consider that a breach of privacy, because I expect they won't publish or sell that data.
However, I do consider advertisers tracking me as breach of privacy, or things like Google Analytics.
They are not the equivalent of the people you meet on the street, they are the equivalent to the stalker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165210</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So hold on to your privacy if you really love it, but realize that society is going to reward you for it less and less, and in fact may even punish you for it relative to much less private others.</p></div><p>which cuts to the heart of the matter doesn't it? as default 'natural' privacy erodes, it cuts closer and closer to what we really think/do vs what we project at the world for the sake of 'community cohesion.'  if taken to the extreme s that authority figures seem to want tot ake it, you'll be executed for the first violent thought you have at age 4 or 5.</p><p>A free society has to allow privacy or else individuals will make war on each other and/or will demand total surveillance because they can't face the reality of what goes on behind most peoples' foreheads, esp their own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So hold on to your privacy if you really love it , but realize that society is going to reward you for it less and less , and in fact may even punish you for it relative to much less private others.which cuts to the heart of the matter does n't it ?
as default 'natural ' privacy erodes , it cuts closer and closer to what we really think/do vs what we project at the world for the sake of 'community cohesion .
' if taken to the extreme s that authority figures seem to want tot ake it , you 'll be executed for the first violent thought you have at age 4 or 5.A free society has to allow privacy or else individuals will make war on each other and/or will demand total surveillance because they ca n't face the reality of what goes on behind most peoples ' foreheads , esp their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So hold on to your privacy if you really love it, but realize that society is going to reward you for it less and less, and in fact may even punish you for it relative to much less private others.which cuts to the heart of the matter doesn't it?
as default 'natural' privacy erodes, it cuts closer and closer to what we really think/do vs what we project at the world for the sake of 'community cohesion.
'  if taken to the extreme s that authority figures seem to want tot ake it, you'll be executed for the first violent thought you have at age 4 or 5.A free society has to allow privacy or else individuals will make war on each other and/or will demand total surveillance because they can't face the reality of what goes on behind most peoples' foreheads, esp their own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159984</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Merenth</author>
	<datestamp>1266313800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy is an illusion.
Internet Privacy doubly so.

Avoiding a technology doesn't preserve privacy, it just makes you feel like you are immune.

Even if you don't have a Facebook account, people who know you are posting pictures of you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is an illusion .
Internet Privacy doubly so .
Avoiding a technology does n't preserve privacy , it just makes you feel like you are immune .
Even if you do n't have a Facebook account , people who know you are posting pictures of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is an illusion.
Internet Privacy doubly so.
Avoiding a technology doesn't preserve privacy, it just makes you feel like you are immune.
Even if you don't have a Facebook account, people who know you are posting pictures of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31180990</id>
	<title>Losing the war.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265053980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?"</p></div><p> Alliance Commander: "Seems odd you'd name your ship after a battle you were on the wrong side of."</p><p>Mal: "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy ?
" Alliance Commander : " Seems odd you 'd name your ship after a battle you were on the wrong side of .
" Mal : " May have been the losing side .
Still not convinced it was the wrong one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?
" Alliance Commander: "Seems odd you'd name your ship after a battle you were on the wrong side of.
"Mal: "May have been the losing side.
Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156716</id>
	<title>Obligatory XKCD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/327/</p><p>just legally change your name to something similar</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/327/just legally change your name to something similar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/327/just legally change your name to something similar</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157122</id>
	<title>FYI man, alright.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>FYI man, alright.  You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day. 1984? Yeah right, man. That's a typo. Orwell is here now. He's livin' large. We have no names, man. No names. We are nameless!</i>
<br> <br>

-Cereal Killer</htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI man , alright .
You could sit at home , and do like absolutely nothing , and your name goes through like 17 computers a day .
1984 ? Yeah right , man .
That 's a typo .
Orwell is here now .
He 's livin ' large .
We have no names , man .
No names .
We are nameless !
-Cereal Killer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI man, alright.
You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day.
1984? Yeah right, man.
That's a typo.
Orwell is here now.
He's livin' large.
We have no names, man.
No names.
We are nameless!
-Cereal Killer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158728</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1266351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wouldn't feel that way if you were an outlier. What if you inherited a few billion dollars from a rich uncle you never thought you had? It would be pretty unlikely for your VERY valuable data to remain hidden in the cloud of us plebes.</p><p>Ditto if you catch a rare disease, or say something offensive to the wrong person. Just because you are one in 4 billion doesn't mean you're not exactly the one they are looking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't feel that way if you were an outlier .
What if you inherited a few billion dollars from a rich uncle you never thought you had ?
It would be pretty unlikely for your VERY valuable data to remain hidden in the cloud of us plebes.Ditto if you catch a rare disease , or say something offensive to the wrong person .
Just because you are one in 4 billion does n't mean you 're not exactly the one they are looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't feel that way if you were an outlier.
What if you inherited a few billion dollars from a rich uncle you never thought you had?
It would be pretty unlikely for your VERY valuable data to remain hidden in the cloud of us plebes.Ditto if you catch a rare disease, or say something offensive to the wrong person.
Just because you are one in 4 billion doesn't mean you're not exactly the one they are looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156394</id>
	<title>OP, show some backbone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.</p></div></blockquote><p>If there is a privacy war it is a war of one.  You know the chef is poisoning the soup but you find it too delicious to stop eating.</p><p>Cancel your cable.  War won.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it.If there is a privacy war it is a war of one .
You know the chef is poisoning the soup but you find it too delicious to stop eating.Cancel your cable .
War won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.If there is a privacy war it is a war of one.
You know the chef is poisoning the soup but you find it too delicious to stop eating.Cancel your cable.
War won.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158366</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1266349800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The poster's problem is that he's going about protecting his privacy the wrong way. Trying to hide all personal information is a losing proposition, as he's noticed. The best way to protect your privacy is to drown the real bits in a sea of fake information.</p><p>If AT&amp;T wants to monitor his viewing habits, write a script that will chose programming at random and switch the U-Verse box to that station while he's not watching it himself. Web analytics and ad servers are equally easy to poison with fake data. The health insurance records are a bit harder, but that's an area where we have more rights and is easier to push for laws that protect privacy.</p><p>If enough people did this, data mining would be almost worthless since you couldn't get reliable results. Of course that's a pipe dream, since not enough people have the technical acumen to do this, but those of us who can should be doing our part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The poster 's problem is that he 's going about protecting his privacy the wrong way .
Trying to hide all personal information is a losing proposition , as he 's noticed .
The best way to protect your privacy is to drown the real bits in a sea of fake information.If AT&amp;T wants to monitor his viewing habits , write a script that will chose programming at random and switch the U-Verse box to that station while he 's not watching it himself .
Web analytics and ad servers are equally easy to poison with fake data .
The health insurance records are a bit harder , but that 's an area where we have more rights and is easier to push for laws that protect privacy.If enough people did this , data mining would be almost worthless since you could n't get reliable results .
Of course that 's a pipe dream , since not enough people have the technical acumen to do this , but those of us who can should be doing our part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The poster's problem is that he's going about protecting his privacy the wrong way.
Trying to hide all personal information is a losing proposition, as he's noticed.
The best way to protect your privacy is to drown the real bits in a sea of fake information.If AT&amp;T wants to monitor his viewing habits, write a script that will chose programming at random and switch the U-Verse box to that station while he's not watching it himself.
Web analytics and ad servers are equally easy to poison with fake data.
The health insurance records are a bit harder, but that's an area where we have more rights and is easier to push for laws that protect privacy.If enough people did this, data mining would be almost worthless since you couldn't get reliable results.
Of course that's a pipe dream, since not enough people have the technical acumen to do this, but those of us who can should be doing our part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157812</id>
	<title>Law....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266347700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite a bit of countries do not guarantee your privacy by law.</p><p>In the Netherlands the constitution guarantees your privacy, and especially emails are protected by our constitution (after all, they're a form of a letter).<br>Depending on your jurisdiction, you could fix the situation by taking various judicial actions. In some countries you aren't protected and you're indeed lost.<br>Consider yourself lost if you live in the UK, U.S.A. or China (among others).</p><p>Oh, and get a tech savvy lawyer, he might be able to help you. Those people consider privacy holy and will do anything in their power to fix your problem if you give them a target and weapons.</p><p>What google analytics is doing might be highly illegal in some countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a bit of countries do not guarantee your privacy by law.In the Netherlands the constitution guarantees your privacy , and especially emails are protected by our constitution ( after all , they 're a form of a letter ) .Depending on your jurisdiction , you could fix the situation by taking various judicial actions .
In some countries you are n't protected and you 're indeed lost.Consider yourself lost if you live in the UK , U.S.A. or China ( among others ) .Oh , and get a tech savvy lawyer , he might be able to help you .
Those people consider privacy holy and will do anything in their power to fix your problem if you give them a target and weapons.What google analytics is doing might be highly illegal in some countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a bit of countries do not guarantee your privacy by law.In the Netherlands the constitution guarantees your privacy, and especially emails are protected by our constitution (after all, they're a form of a letter).Depending on your jurisdiction, you could fix the situation by taking various judicial actions.
In some countries you aren't protected and you're indeed lost.Consider yourself lost if you live in the UK, U.S.A. or China (among others).Oh, and get a tech savvy lawyer, he might be able to help you.
Those people consider privacy holy and will do anything in their power to fix your problem if you give them a target and weapons.What google analytics is doing might be highly illegal in some countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165884</id>
	<title>Re:Computers are the weapon...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really this simple: Our computer technology is not architected for either security or privacy.  There are (fairly obvious) ways to design a privacy-aware system, but they all involve a P2P distributed architecture where everyone owns / stores their own information and micromanages the sharing of that information.  (ie. social networking but without a 3rd party who must run a giant server farm and can see everyone's information)  Such a distributed system can also minimize the amount of information shared between parties of a business transaction.  A vendor only needs know that a payment amount was approved (cryptographic token). A shipper only needs to know the address a QR-coded box needs shipped to. A credit card company only needs to know the amount of the payment to generate a cryptographic token for. The user provides only the sufficient information for each party to perform their job and no others.  The vendor has no idea who you are or where you live. The shipper has no idea what you purchased.  The credit card company has no idea that you did anything but authorize a token for a given amount. Of course, the dots can still be connected, but it would require a large amount of coordination between parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really this simple : Our computer technology is not architected for either security or privacy .
There are ( fairly obvious ) ways to design a privacy-aware system , but they all involve a P2P distributed architecture where everyone owns / stores their own information and micromanages the sharing of that information .
( ie. social networking but without a 3rd party who must run a giant server farm and can see everyone 's information ) Such a distributed system can also minimize the amount of information shared between parties of a business transaction .
A vendor only needs know that a payment amount was approved ( cryptographic token ) .
A shipper only needs to know the address a QR-coded box needs shipped to .
A credit card company only needs to know the amount of the payment to generate a cryptographic token for .
The user provides only the sufficient information for each party to perform their job and no others .
The vendor has no idea who you are or where you live .
The shipper has no idea what you purchased .
The credit card company has no idea that you did anything but authorize a token for a given amount .
Of course , the dots can still be connected , but it would require a large amount of coordination between parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really this simple: Our computer technology is not architected for either security or privacy.
There are (fairly obvious) ways to design a privacy-aware system, but they all involve a P2P distributed architecture where everyone owns / stores their own information and micromanages the sharing of that information.
(ie. social networking but without a 3rd party who must run a giant server farm and can see everyone's information)  Such a distributed system can also minimize the amount of information shared between parties of a business transaction.
A vendor only needs know that a payment amount was approved (cryptographic token).
A shipper only needs to know the address a QR-coded box needs shipped to.
A credit card company only needs to know the amount of the payment to generate a cryptographic token for.
The user provides only the sufficient information for each party to perform their job and no others.
The vendor has no idea who you are or where you live.
The shipper has no idea what you purchased.
The credit card company has no idea that you did anything but authorize a token for a given amount.
Of course, the dots can still be connected, but it would require a large amount of coordination between parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163418</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266331980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't browse the web the way young people do. You probably go to less than a dozen familiar websites a day. The younger generations are all about social sharing, such as reddit, digg, facebook, twitter, and even 4chan. NoFlash is great but NoScript becomes a serious burden when every time you visit a new website (which is frequently for young people) you have to whitelist a bunch of shit and guess which shit to whitelist until something actually works. And most of those websites don't work with TOR (I don't think slashdot even works with TOR).



If you want to shut yourself out, you are correct, there are tools that enable you to do that. But then you'll be exactly that, shut out. I think what we need to is DoNotCall list for the internet, a government website where you press a button and everyone that collects information on you is obligated to delete it, and you can whitelist certain sites/businesses if you wish, and these businesses would need a written letter allowing them to share information with other businesses (it can't be part of a contact, ie sign up for cable allowing sharing by proxy). It probably wouldn't be enforceable though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't browse the web the way young people do .
You probably go to less than a dozen familiar websites a day .
The younger generations are all about social sharing , such as reddit , digg , facebook , twitter , and even 4chan .
NoFlash is great but NoScript becomes a serious burden when every time you visit a new website ( which is frequently for young people ) you have to whitelist a bunch of shit and guess which shit to whitelist until something actually works .
And most of those websites do n't work with TOR ( I do n't think slashdot even works with TOR ) .
If you want to shut yourself out , you are correct , there are tools that enable you to do that .
But then you 'll be exactly that , shut out .
I think what we need to is DoNotCall list for the internet , a government website where you press a button and everyone that collects information on you is obligated to delete it , and you can whitelist certain sites/businesses if you wish , and these businesses would need a written letter allowing them to share information with other businesses ( it ca n't be part of a contact , ie sign up for cable allowing sharing by proxy ) .
It probably would n't be enforceable though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't browse the web the way young people do.
You probably go to less than a dozen familiar websites a day.
The younger generations are all about social sharing, such as reddit, digg, facebook, twitter, and even 4chan.
NoFlash is great but NoScript becomes a serious burden when every time you visit a new website (which is frequently for young people) you have to whitelist a bunch of shit and guess which shit to whitelist until something actually works.
And most of those websites don't work with TOR (I don't think slashdot even works with TOR).
If you want to shut yourself out, you are correct, there are tools that enable you to do that.
But then you'll be exactly that, shut out.
I think what we need to is DoNotCall list for the internet, a government website where you press a button and everyone that collects information on you is obligated to delete it, and you can whitelist certain sites/businesses if you wish, and these businesses would need a written letter allowing them to share information with other businesses (it can't be part of a contact, ie sign up for cable allowing sharing by proxy).
It probably wouldn't be enforceable though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</id>
	<title>You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'m extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.</p></div></blockquote><p>You are agreeing to give up your privacy. You are not losing - you surrendered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'m extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it.You are agreeing to give up your privacy .
You are not losing - you surrendered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'m extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.You are agreeing to give up your privacy.
You are not losing - you surrendered.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161116</id>
	<title>Re:Don't borrow money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266318960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes! those "reward cards" net you peanuts, so just say no to the man! Don't be greedy - eschew the competitions etc.</p><p>ps every time someone calls from some firm (rare) I make them remove my number from their database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes !
those " reward cards " net you peanuts , so just say no to the man !
Do n't be greedy - eschew the competitions etc.ps every time someone calls from some firm ( rare ) I make them remove my number from their database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes!
those "reward cards" net you peanuts, so just say no to the man!
Don't be greedy - eschew the competitions etc.ps every time someone calls from some firm (rare) I make them remove my number from their database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160290</id>
	<title>Re:Try to skew their stats, if you must...</title>
	<author>dfdashh</author>
	<datestamp>1266315060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companies</p></div><p>Before you hand wave e-mail address validation off as a simple regular expression, you may want to take a look at the code behind an actual <a href="http://code.google.com/p/isemail/source/browse/trunk/is\_email.php" title="google.com">RFC-compliant validator</a> [google.com]. Hardly just a regular expression.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees , employed by these companiesBefore you hand wave e-mail address validation off as a simple regular expression , you may want to take a look at the code behind an actual RFC-compliant validator [ google.com ] .
Hardly just a regular expression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companiesBefore you hand wave e-mail address validation off as a simple regular expression, you may want to take a look at the code behind an actual RFC-compliant validator [google.com].
Hardly just a regular expression.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161022</id>
	<title>Re:The offensive part.</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1266318540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with advertising, proceeds from data mining offset the cost of product/service in question.  If they don't send you a gift at the end of the season, neither do they send you a bill or make you pay more up-front.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with advertising , proceeds from data mining offset the cost of product/service in question .
If they do n't send you a gift at the end of the season , neither do they send you a bill or make you pay more up-front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with advertising, proceeds from data mining offset the cost of product/service in question.
If they don't send you a gift at the end of the season, neither do they send you a bill or make you pay more up-front.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161202</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you wouldn't be opposed to video cameras through out your home and openly accessible from the internet so anyone can watch you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you would n't be opposed to video cameras through out your home and openly accessible from the internet so anyone can watch you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you wouldn't be opposed to video cameras through out your home and openly accessible from the internet so anyone can watch you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156596</id>
	<title>that is...</title>
	<author>alobar72</author>
	<datestamp>1266343560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that is the sad point and perfidity of it:<br>to this point in time, there is no obvious evil company or government that forces us to hand over our private data.<br>They do not  invade our houses anymore, or intercept our mails without us knowing.</p><p>No: this days they offer us a big deal of convenience and comfort - just for that little bit of information about us.<br>And if you are not too deep into it you might speak to yourself: why not ? no big deal.</p><p>This for sure is a reason why the law-situation today kind of misses the point. The whole background of privacy protection was to protect you from evil companies and governments that are trying to steal your private data one way or the other. It is very hard to justify laws against people giving up their privacy on free will ( more or less )<br>Not that most of the politicians seem to understand the topic.</p><p>A few weeks ago I had an interesting discussion with a guy who is in that kind of business - acquiring and consolidating data from different sources to provide them to other companies for marketing purposes. And I was really blown away by what these guys are doing. I thought I was paranoid - but I still have been magnitudes to naive I think.<br>btw: It may not even save you to not give any of your data away. Might be enough to live in the neibourhood of people who do - you will be thrown into the same bag - and treated acordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that is the sad point and perfidity of it : to this point in time , there is no obvious evil company or government that forces us to hand over our private data.They do not invade our houses anymore , or intercept our mails without us knowing.No : this days they offer us a big deal of convenience and comfort - just for that little bit of information about us.And if you are not too deep into it you might speak to yourself : why not ?
no big deal.This for sure is a reason why the law-situation today kind of misses the point .
The whole background of privacy protection was to protect you from evil companies and governments that are trying to steal your private data one way or the other .
It is very hard to justify laws against people giving up their privacy on free will ( more or less ) Not that most of the politicians seem to understand the topic.A few weeks ago I had an interesting discussion with a guy who is in that kind of business - acquiring and consolidating data from different sources to provide them to other companies for marketing purposes .
And I was really blown away by what these guys are doing .
I thought I was paranoid - but I still have been magnitudes to naive I think.btw : It may not even save you to not give any of your data away .
Might be enough to live in the neibourhood of people who do - you will be thrown into the same bag - and treated acordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that is the sad point and perfidity of it:to this point in time, there is no obvious evil company or government that forces us to hand over our private data.They do not  invade our houses anymore, or intercept our mails without us knowing.No: this days they offer us a big deal of convenience and comfort - just for that little bit of information about us.And if you are not too deep into it you might speak to yourself: why not ?
no big deal.This for sure is a reason why the law-situation today kind of misses the point.
The whole background of privacy protection was to protect you from evil companies and governments that are trying to steal your private data one way or the other.
It is very hard to justify laws against people giving up their privacy on free will ( more or less )Not that most of the politicians seem to understand the topic.A few weeks ago I had an interesting discussion with a guy who is in that kind of business - acquiring and consolidating data from different sources to provide them to other companies for marketing purposes.
And I was really blown away by what these guys are doing.
I thought I was paranoid - but I still have been magnitudes to naive I think.btw: It may not even save you to not give any of your data away.
Might be enough to live in the neibourhood of people who do - you will be thrown into the same bag - and treated acordingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162038</id>
	<title>Who really cares about data mining? I want to know</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1266323520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I want to know is why the OP and other privacy nuts care so much if AT&amp;T knows what you watch on TV. Who gives a crap?</p><p>All 99.99\% of data mining is used for is to target advertising to groups. Do you consider yourself a mindless zombie that buys anything advertised to him? No? Then what do you care what advertising is shoved down your pipe?</p><p>Frankly I could give two craps what ads they think may or may not appeal to me, because none of them will sway my opinion more than my own research. As such, I could also give two craps if they want to track my habits to kingdom come to feed me such ads.</p><p>Really, the behavior of your mundane day to day life is of no value to anyone but advertisers. And unless you let those ads run your life, you should not let you tinfoil hat paranoia do it either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is why the OP and other privacy nuts care so much if AT&amp;T knows what you watch on TV .
Who gives a crap ? All 99.99 \ % of data mining is used for is to target advertising to groups .
Do you consider yourself a mindless zombie that buys anything advertised to him ?
No ? Then what do you care what advertising is shoved down your pipe ? Frankly I could give two craps what ads they think may or may not appeal to me , because none of them will sway my opinion more than my own research .
As such , I could also give two craps if they want to track my habits to kingdom come to feed me such ads.Really , the behavior of your mundane day to day life is of no value to anyone but advertisers .
And unless you let those ads run your life , you should not let you tinfoil hat paranoia do it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is why the OP and other privacy nuts care so much if AT&amp;T knows what you watch on TV.
Who gives a crap?All 99.99\% of data mining is used for is to target advertising to groups.
Do you consider yourself a mindless zombie that buys anything advertised to him?
No? Then what do you care what advertising is shoved down your pipe?Frankly I could give two craps what ads they think may or may not appeal to me, because none of them will sway my opinion more than my own research.
As such, I could also give two craps if they want to track my habits to kingdom come to feed me such ads.Really, the behavior of your mundane day to day life is of no value to anyone but advertisers.
And unless you let those ads run your life, you should not let you tinfoil hat paranoia do it either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159626</id>
	<title>Need less privacy, not more</title>
	<author>Stuntmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266312240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to be the minority view here on Slashdot, but it must be said.  I personally wish the marketers had much <em>more</em> information about me, so they wouldn't do such a bad job of targeting.  Here are some examples:</p><ul>
<li>Credit card applications, and junk mail in general.  I have never once in my life responded to an unsolicited credit card application in the mail, and I never will.  If a marketer could figure this out about me, it would save time, money, energy, and trees for everyone.</li><li>I never buy Budweiser, or Bud Light.  Stop showing me all those TV ads.</li><li>When I call the support number for a technical product, in almost every case I should skip level 1 support.  Yes, the DSL modem is plugged in.  Yes, my computer is on.  I know it's an issue with DNS settings, so please forward me to someone with whom I can have a productive conversation.  As it is I spend 10-15 minutes patiently answering the easy questions until the level 1 support rep figures out they can't help me.</li><li>Upselling at the bank.  I keep a lot of cash in my checking account, and every time I talk to a bank teller, etc. for any reason at all, they try to upsell me into a different sort of account.  Yes I've looked at them, no I don't want them, please stop pestering me about this at every conceivable opportunity.</li></ul><p>My ideal situation would be a public persona that is highly detailed and non-private, plus an ability to step into anonymity if I wanted to.  I.e., I'm happy with the grocery store knowing everything about my purchasing behavior because of their loyalty card -- and selling/giving that information to anyone else that could use it to more accurately target me -- but I also like to have the option of purchasing with cash if I choose to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to be the minority view here on Slashdot , but it must be said .
I personally wish the marketers had much more information about me , so they would n't do such a bad job of targeting .
Here are some examples : Credit card applications , and junk mail in general .
I have never once in my life responded to an unsolicited credit card application in the mail , and I never will .
If a marketer could figure this out about me , it would save time , money , energy , and trees for everyone.I never buy Budweiser , or Bud Light .
Stop showing me all those TV ads.When I call the support number for a technical product , in almost every case I should skip level 1 support .
Yes , the DSL modem is plugged in .
Yes , my computer is on .
I know it 's an issue with DNS settings , so please forward me to someone with whom I can have a productive conversation .
As it is I spend 10-15 minutes patiently answering the easy questions until the level 1 support rep figures out they ca n't help me.Upselling at the bank .
I keep a lot of cash in my checking account , and every time I talk to a bank teller , etc .
for any reason at all , they try to upsell me into a different sort of account .
Yes I 've looked at them , no I do n't want them , please stop pestering me about this at every conceivable opportunity.My ideal situation would be a public persona that is highly detailed and non-private , plus an ability to step into anonymity if I wanted to .
I.e. , I 'm happy with the grocery store knowing everything about my purchasing behavior because of their loyalty card -- and selling/giving that information to anyone else that could use it to more accurately target me -- but I also like to have the option of purchasing with cash if I choose to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to be the minority view here on Slashdot, but it must be said.
I personally wish the marketers had much more information about me, so they wouldn't do such a bad job of targeting.
Here are some examples:
Credit card applications, and junk mail in general.
I have never once in my life responded to an unsolicited credit card application in the mail, and I never will.
If a marketer could figure this out about me, it would save time, money, energy, and trees for everyone.I never buy Budweiser, or Bud Light.
Stop showing me all those TV ads.When I call the support number for a technical product, in almost every case I should skip level 1 support.
Yes, the DSL modem is plugged in.
Yes, my computer is on.
I know it's an issue with DNS settings, so please forward me to someone with whom I can have a productive conversation.
As it is I spend 10-15 minutes patiently answering the easy questions until the level 1 support rep figures out they can't help me.Upselling at the bank.
I keep a lot of cash in my checking account, and every time I talk to a bank teller, etc.
for any reason at all, they try to upsell me into a different sort of account.
Yes I've looked at them, no I don't want them, please stop pestering me about this at every conceivable opportunity.My ideal situation would be a public persona that is highly detailed and non-private, plus an ability to step into anonymity if I wanted to.
I.e., I'm happy with the grocery store knowing everything about my purchasing behavior because of their loyalty card -- and selling/giving that information to anyone else that could use it to more accurately target me -- but I also like to have the option of purchasing with cash if I choose to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158078</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1266348780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right on. Privacy technology must continue to progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on .
Privacy technology must continue to progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on.
Privacy technology must continue to progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160222</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>cdrudge</author>
	<datestamp>1266314760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>States and other government entities are also allowed (although not required) to request your SSN <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_Security\_number#Use\_by\_states\_and\_political\_subdivisions" title="wikipedia.org">for a variety of reasons</a> [wikipedia.org] not necessarily related to taxes or social security administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>States and other government entities are also allowed ( although not required ) to request your SSN for a variety of reasons [ wikipedia.org ] not necessarily related to taxes or social security administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>States and other government entities are also allowed (although not required) to request your SSN for a variety of reasons [wikipedia.org] not necessarily related to taxes or social security administration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31169760</id>
	<title>Re:Try to skew their stats, if you must...</title>
	<author>valduboisvert</author>
	<datestamp>1265041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is somehow close to what I do and I consider it a good practice. My friends call me a paranoid for good reasons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
 I also refuse ANY service that somehow gets too curious about my personal habits regardless of how tempting the service might be. Rules are rules, and paranoid rules have 0 priority in my system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is somehow close to what I do and I consider it a good practice .
My friends call me a paranoid for good reasons ; ) I also refuse ANY service that somehow gets too curious about my personal habits regardless of how tempting the service might be .
Rules are rules , and paranoid rules have 0 priority in my system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is somehow close to what I do and I consider it a good practice.
My friends call me a paranoid for good reasons ;)
 I also refuse ANY service that somehow gets too curious about my personal habits regardless of how tempting the service might be.
Rules are rules, and paranoid rules have 0 priority in my system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288</id>
	<title>Err no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>War?  I'd say we're Poland and we got blitzkrieg'd.<br>A war implies you put up a fight.  They control the media,<br>the lawmakers, the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War ?
I 'd say we 're Poland and we got blitzkrieg 'd.A war implies you put up a fight .
They control the media,the lawmakers , the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War?
I'd say we're Poland and we got blitzkrieg'd.A war implies you put up a fight.
They control the media,the lawmakers, the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342</id>
	<title>Accept and enjoy!</title>
	<author>Jaden42</author>
	<datestamp>1266342540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood why people didn't want to be catalogued.  I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went, everyone knew what I wanted.</p><p>That can't *possibly* be a bad thing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood why people did n't want to be catalogued .
I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went , everyone knew what I wanted.That ca n't * possibly * be a bad thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood why people didn't want to be catalogued.
I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went, everyone knew what I wanted.That can't *possibly* be a bad thing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157072</id>
	<title>Need to live and let live</title>
	<author>ynotds</author>
	<datestamp>1266345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy was always a goner if we were going to take the bait of better connectivity and information that we hoped might enable us to improve the world.</p><p>The Black Swan for those of us encultured by the optimism of the 'sixties, was a resurgent authoritarian rump, led by a lost generation with more fears of hippies than of fascists. The rump steamrolled any notion of "Law as last resort" and degraded the once honourable notion of justice into demands for pro-active revenge against any perceived difference or insult. Meanwhile we gained reason and capacity to skew the population age curve and stretch consumer economics so far that children became major investments, too precious and too miss-perceived as reflecting on their parenting not to be smothered in over-protection from testing boundaries and learning about risk and responsibility.</p><p>So we finish up with the nanny-state left wanting to equally privilege any group of muddled thinkers and the intellectually-challenged right wanting to foist their ever-narrowing "values" on everybody else. And we too often feel constrained that they can so easily track us dissenters down and find some pointless law to trip us with whenever we stir too hard.</p><p>25 years ago I had a placeholder for a chapter that has never been written: "No Secrets (...) And No Need For Secrets," but even then it was 25 years too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy was always a goner if we were going to take the bait of better connectivity and information that we hoped might enable us to improve the world.The Black Swan for those of us encultured by the optimism of the 'sixties , was a resurgent authoritarian rump , led by a lost generation with more fears of hippies than of fascists .
The rump steamrolled any notion of " Law as last resort " and degraded the once honourable notion of justice into demands for pro-active revenge against any perceived difference or insult .
Meanwhile we gained reason and capacity to skew the population age curve and stretch consumer economics so far that children became major investments , too precious and too miss-perceived as reflecting on their parenting not to be smothered in over-protection from testing boundaries and learning about risk and responsibility.So we finish up with the nanny-state left wanting to equally privilege any group of muddled thinkers and the intellectually-challenged right wanting to foist their ever-narrowing " values " on everybody else .
And we too often feel constrained that they can so easily track us dissenters down and find some pointless law to trip us with whenever we stir too hard.25 years ago I had a placeholder for a chapter that has never been written : " No Secrets ( ... ) And No Need For Secrets , " but even then it was 25 years too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy was always a goner if we were going to take the bait of better connectivity and information that we hoped might enable us to improve the world.The Black Swan for those of us encultured by the optimism of the 'sixties, was a resurgent authoritarian rump, led by a lost generation with more fears of hippies than of fascists.
The rump steamrolled any notion of "Law as last resort" and degraded the once honourable notion of justice into demands for pro-active revenge against any perceived difference or insult.
Meanwhile we gained reason and capacity to skew the population age curve and stretch consumer economics so far that children became major investments, too precious and too miss-perceived as reflecting on their parenting not to be smothered in over-protection from testing boundaries and learning about risk and responsibility.So we finish up with the nanny-state left wanting to equally privilege any group of muddled thinkers and the intellectually-challenged right wanting to foist their ever-narrowing "values" on everybody else.
And we too often feel constrained that they can so easily track us dissenters down and find some pointless law to trip us with whenever we stir too hard.25 years ago I had a placeholder for a chapter that has never been written: "No Secrets (...) And No Need For Secrets," but even then it was 25 years too late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31164666</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266340620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in China, you insensitive clod -- Tor is a useful daily tool and a requirement to browse many websites. Many of us have also been using ad blockers and flash blockers for years with few inconveniences. This all-or-nothing approach not only misses the practicality of these tools, but it also fails to consider the daily needs of many people who are not in your precise situation. It's not all about Facebook photos and cute advertisements for many of us. I can't even browse the Wikimedia Commons without the Great Firewall cutting me off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in China , you insensitive clod -- Tor is a useful daily tool and a requirement to browse many websites .
Many of us have also been using ad blockers and flash blockers for years with few inconveniences .
This all-or-nothing approach not only misses the practicality of these tools , but it also fails to consider the daily needs of many people who are not in your precise situation .
It 's not all about Facebook photos and cute advertisements for many of us .
I ca n't even browse the Wikimedia Commons without the Great Firewall cutting me off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in China, you insensitive clod -- Tor is a useful daily tool and a requirement to browse many websites.
Many of us have also been using ad blockers and flash blockers for years with few inconveniences.
This all-or-nothing approach not only misses the practicality of these tools, but it also fails to consider the daily needs of many people who are not in your precise situation.
It's not all about Facebook photos and cute advertisements for many of us.
I can't even browse the Wikimedia Commons without the Great Firewall cutting me off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157524</id>
	<title>Don't borrow money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266346620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I get very little junk mail and very few promotional calls.  This despite living in a good neighborhood in Silicon Valley.
</p><p>
It may be because I don't have any debt.  The big source of personal data is credit-reporting agencies, and since I have nothing but a bank credit card, they don't know much about me.  I've obtained a copy of my credit report; they see my bank credit card and my cash bank account only.  They have no info about brokerage accounts and mutual funds.
</p><p>
I use a local ISP, Sonic, for DSL.  They don't seem to give out any info about their customers.  I don't have TV cable.
I don't have any "affinity cards", other then a Costco membership.  I belong to a few organizations, none of which
seem to send junk mail.  I have AdBlock and FlashBlock installed in Firefox.
</p><p>
But I make no attempt to hide.  My phone number is listed (and on the Do Not Call list).  I'm registered to vote.  My web sites have valid, non-anonymous WHOIS information.  Yet I get almost no targeted advertising.
</p><p>
So I think that much of the targeted information is coming via credit-reporting agencies.
</p><p>
<i>Spend less than you earn, and life will be good to you.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get very little junk mail and very few promotional calls .
This despite living in a good neighborhood in Silicon Valley .
It may be because I do n't have any debt .
The big source of personal data is credit-reporting agencies , and since I have nothing but a bank credit card , they do n't know much about me .
I 've obtained a copy of my credit report ; they see my bank credit card and my cash bank account only .
They have no info about brokerage accounts and mutual funds .
I use a local ISP , Sonic , for DSL .
They do n't seem to give out any info about their customers .
I do n't have TV cable .
I do n't have any " affinity cards " , other then a Costco membership .
I belong to a few organizations , none of which seem to send junk mail .
I have AdBlock and FlashBlock installed in Firefox .
But I make no attempt to hide .
My phone number is listed ( and on the Do Not Call list ) .
I 'm registered to vote .
My web sites have valid , non-anonymous WHOIS information .
Yet I get almost no targeted advertising .
So I think that much of the targeted information is coming via credit-reporting agencies .
Spend less than you earn , and life will be good to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I get very little junk mail and very few promotional calls.
This despite living in a good neighborhood in Silicon Valley.
It may be because I don't have any debt.
The big source of personal data is credit-reporting agencies, and since I have nothing but a bank credit card, they don't know much about me.
I've obtained a copy of my credit report; they see my bank credit card and my cash bank account only.
They have no info about brokerage accounts and mutual funds.
I use a local ISP, Sonic, for DSL.
They don't seem to give out any info about their customers.
I don't have TV cable.
I don't have any "affinity cards", other then a Costco membership.
I belong to a few organizations, none of which
seem to send junk mail.
I have AdBlock and FlashBlock installed in Firefox.
But I make no attempt to hide.
My phone number is listed (and on the Do Not Call list).
I'm registered to vote.
My web sites have valid, non-anonymous WHOIS information.
Yet I get almost no targeted advertising.
So I think that much of the targeted information is coming via credit-reporting agencies.
Spend less than you earn, and life will be good to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157868</id>
	<title>Re:You are number six.</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1266348000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>#2: Ha ha ha ha ha!</p></div><p>

Telphone Operator: Captain!!<br>
#6: Take off every 'Zig'!!<br>
#6: You know what you doing!<br>
#6: Move 'Zig'<br>
#6: For great justice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># 2 : Ha ha ha ha ha !
Telphone Operator : Captain ! !
# 6 : Take off every 'Zig ' ! !
# 6 : You know what you doing !
# 6 : Move 'Zig ' # 6 : For great justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#2: Ha ha ha ha ha!
Telphone Operator: Captain!!
#6: Take off every 'Zig'!!
#6: You know what you doing!
#6: Move 'Zig'
#6: For great justice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156682</id>
	<title>Clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Halfway off topic...</p><p>Anyone know anything about Clear, the company trying to promote 4G WiMax for home internet and phone use?  They seem to be advertising reasonable rates, and I would <i>love</i> to dump AT&amp;T for my home phone and internet service as protest against their data sharing.</p><p>Who owns them?  Anyone have experience with the quality of their service?  How much do they tack on in other fees and such that don't appear until the first bill?</p><p>(Rates seem to be about the same for home use, but with Clear service would be faster, I could also buy service for my laptop to use anywhere in town with faster service and a rate better than AT&amp;T Wireless or any other cell provider.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Halfway off topic...Anyone know anything about Clear , the company trying to promote 4G WiMax for home internet and phone use ?
They seem to be advertising reasonable rates , and I would love to dump AT&amp;T for my home phone and internet service as protest against their data sharing.Who owns them ?
Anyone have experience with the quality of their service ?
How much do they tack on in other fees and such that do n't appear until the first bill ?
( Rates seem to be about the same for home use , but with Clear service would be faster , I could also buy service for my laptop to use anywhere in town with faster service and a rate better than AT&amp;T Wireless or any other cell provider .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Halfway off topic...Anyone know anything about Clear, the company trying to promote 4G WiMax for home internet and phone use?
They seem to be advertising reasonable rates, and I would love to dump AT&amp;T for my home phone and internet service as protest against their data sharing.Who owns them?
Anyone have experience with the quality of their service?
How much do they tack on in other fees and such that don't appear until the first bill?
(Rates seem to be about the same for home use, but with Clear service would be faster, I could also buy service for my laptop to use anywhere in town with faster service and a rate better than AT&amp;T Wireless or any other cell provider.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161792</id>
	<title>Re:Err no</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1266322260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh for the good old days, when an apostrophe unambiguously meant, "Look out, here comes an s!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh for the good old days , when an apostrophe unambiguously meant , " Look out , here comes an s !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh for the good old days, when an apostrophe unambiguously meant, "Look out, here comes an s!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161336</id>
	<title>Re:The Counter Argument....</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1266319920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may get modded a troll, but it's absolutely spot on. I may not like it, and it's not a sentiment I appreciate either. But it is true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may get modded a troll , but it 's absolutely spot on .
I may not like it , and it 's not a sentiment I appreciate either .
But it is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may get modded a troll, but it's absolutely spot on.
I may not like it, and it's not a sentiment I appreciate either.
But it is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156546</id>
	<title>Privacy? Who cares!</title>
	<author>frenkel</author>
	<datestamp>1266343380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some people just don't care about privacy. A good example shown by <a href="http://pleaserobme.com/" title="pleaserobme.com" rel="nofollow">http://pleaserobme.com/</a> [pleaserobme.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people just do n't care about privacy .
A good example shown by http : //pleaserobme.com/ [ pleaserobme.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people just don't care about privacy.
A good example shown by http://pleaserobme.com/ [pleaserobme.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156900</id>
	<title>Follow the money trail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a money and politics issue, at the end of the day.  As our privacy is slowly eroded over time, it becomes more and more necessary to find out who is lobbying our government to gain access to the information we are trying to keep private, and find out who in our government is capitulating to said lobbyists, so that come re-election time, we can vote 'em out.  My $.02.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a money and politics issue , at the end of the day .
As our privacy is slowly eroded over time , it becomes more and more necessary to find out who is lobbying our government to gain access to the information we are trying to keep private , and find out who in our government is capitulating to said lobbyists , so that come re-election time , we can vote 'em out .
My $ .02 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a money and politics issue, at the end of the day.
As our privacy is slowly eroded over time, it becomes more and more necessary to find out who is lobbying our government to gain access to the information we are trying to keep private, and find out who in our government is capitulating to said lobbyists, so that come re-election time, we can vote 'em out.
My $.02.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157774</id>
	<title>I know I'm not that interesting to anyone ...</title>
	<author>lorg</author>
	<datestamp>1266347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I know I'm not that interesting to anyone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>None of us are, except to friends, family and ourselves (and sometimes not even that or to them). But in this case you are interesting, to the company and their advertisers that is. Otherwise they wouldn't bother logging your viewing habbits. I doubt there is that much you can do about it except to feed a lot of extra info into the system to obscure your real viewing preferences. So just leave the telly on 24/7 and randomly pick programs to show when you are not watching something yourself. The drawback is that you'll probably get some pretty weird ads showing up when you are actually watching. That plus the extra power consumption = electricity bill so it might not be worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I know I 'm not that interesting to anyone ... " None of us are , except to friends , family and ourselves ( and sometimes not even that or to them ) .
But in this case you are interesting , to the company and their advertisers that is .
Otherwise they would n't bother logging your viewing habbits .
I doubt there is that much you can do about it except to feed a lot of extra info into the system to obscure your real viewing preferences .
So just leave the telly on 24/7 and randomly pick programs to show when you are not watching something yourself .
The drawback is that you 'll probably get some pretty weird ads showing up when you are actually watching .
That plus the extra power consumption = electricity bill so it might not be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I know I'm not that interesting to anyone ..."None of us are, except to friends, family and ourselves (and sometimes not even that or to them).
But in this case you are interesting, to the company and their advertisers that is.
Otherwise they wouldn't bother logging your viewing habbits.
I doubt there is that much you can do about it except to feed a lot of extra info into the system to obscure your real viewing preferences.
So just leave the telly on 24/7 and randomly pick programs to show when you are not watching something yourself.
The drawback is that you'll probably get some pretty weird ads showing up when you are actually watching.
That plus the extra power consumption = electricity bill so it might not be worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157468</id>
	<title>Re:Good privacy is really difficult</title>
	<author>spaceman375</author>
	<datestamp>1266346380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your VPN was through a WiFi access point. One quick token to a google database and it knew what hotel you were in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your VPN was through a WiFi access point .
One quick token to a google database and it knew what hotel you were in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your VPN was through a WiFi access point.
One quick token to a google database and it knew what hotel you were in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156556</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would have been funnier if your actual<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. uid was 5534289, but I don't think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has that many users yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been funnier if your actual / .
uid was 5534289 , but I do n't think / .
has that many users yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been funnier if your actual /.
uid was 5534289, but I don't think /.
has that many users yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158184</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yep, same with intelligence.  Ever noticed how when calculators came along we stopped being able to do basic math?  As GPS becomes more common I predict we'll give up navigation.  Before too long we'll give up driving.  Skynet won't have to take over the world, we'll sign it over in exchange for free cable and a discount card at the local all you can eat buffet.<br>PS<br>Facebook might have a vested interest in their claims.  They make their money off of corporate data mining.  Of course they're going to claim people don't want privacy.  I think it's far from the truth, but many people don't understand the battle at hand or have already given up.  It's hopeless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yep , same with intelligence .
Ever noticed how when calculators came along we stopped being able to do basic math ?
As GPS becomes more common I predict we 'll give up navigation .
Before too long we 'll give up driving .
Skynet wo n't have to take over the world , we 'll sign it over in exchange for free cable and a discount card at the local all you can eat buffet.PSFacebook might have a vested interest in their claims .
They make their money off of corporate data mining .
Of course they 're going to claim people do n't want privacy .
I think it 's far from the truth , but many people do n't understand the battle at hand or have already given up .
It 's hopeless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yep, same with intelligence.
Ever noticed how when calculators came along we stopped being able to do basic math?
As GPS becomes more common I predict we'll give up navigation.
Before too long we'll give up driving.
Skynet won't have to take over the world, we'll sign it over in exchange for free cable and a discount card at the local all you can eat buffet.PSFacebook might have a vested interest in their claims.
They make their money off of corporate data mining.
Of course they're going to claim people don't want privacy.
I think it's far from the truth, but many people don't understand the battle at hand or have already given up.
It's hopeless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156854</id>
	<title>Re:Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you are jewish then the neo-nazi's probably already know where you live. If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.</p></div><p>Sorry to go off track, but are these supposed to be polar opposites?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are jewish then the neo-nazi 's probably already know where you live .
If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.Sorry to go off track , but are these supposed to be polar opposites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are jewish then the neo-nazi's probably already know where you live.
If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.Sorry to go off track, but are these supposed to be polar opposites?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1266345780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media, TV shows, movies or otherwise.</i></p><p>Indeed. Most 'media providers' on the net certainly don't seem to be asking for SSN...</p><p>And in cases where it's hard to avoid some tracking, like social networking sites, just sprinkle freely with sockpuppet identities to screw with the tracking. If you're worried about leakage between browser profiles or users, create virtual machines to run multiple virtual identities. Create your own happy little multiple-personality collective.</p><p>Those with the idea that they want to track 'everything' often seem to miss how much crap 'everything' actually contains. And while they can attempt to record as much as they can, they can neither make you tell the truth, nor the whole truth, nor shut you up once you wander off into fantasyland.</p><p>And hey, best of all, polluting the data really seems to piss the data mining junkies off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media , TV shows , movies or otherwise.Indeed .
Most 'media providers ' on the net certainly do n't seem to be asking for SSN...And in cases where it 's hard to avoid some tracking , like social networking sites , just sprinkle freely with sockpuppet identities to screw with the tracking .
If you 're worried about leakage between browser profiles or users , create virtual machines to run multiple virtual identities .
Create your own happy little multiple-personality collective.Those with the idea that they want to track 'everything ' often seem to miss how much crap 'everything ' actually contains .
And while they can attempt to record as much as they can , they can neither make you tell the truth , nor the whole truth , nor shut you up once you wander off into fantasyland.And hey , best of all , polluting the data really seems to piss the data mining junkies off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media, TV shows, movies or otherwise.Indeed.
Most 'media providers' on the net certainly don't seem to be asking for SSN...And in cases where it's hard to avoid some tracking, like social networking sites, just sprinkle freely with sockpuppet identities to screw with the tracking.
If you're worried about leakage between browser profiles or users, create virtual machines to run multiple virtual identities.
Create your own happy little multiple-personality collective.Those with the idea that they want to track 'everything' often seem to miss how much crap 'everything' actually contains.
And while they can attempt to record as much as they can, they can neither make you tell the truth, nor the whole truth, nor shut you up once you wander off into fantasyland.And hey, best of all, polluting the data really seems to piss the data mining junkies off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157318</id>
	<title>Interaction</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266345900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      When you choose to interact with others privacy is off the table by definition. All that can really be private is that which is kept only between yours ears and in no way uttered to another human being. For whatever reasons we have a segment of the population, each with their own definition of privacy, ranting about the ability of others to know something about them. Yet they are the ones that choose to live within society and communicate with others in a thousand different ways.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Think about it. If you buy a home in a neighborhood where homes always cost about $500,000 then you have announced to the world that your earnings or holdings are greater than most peoples. In other words simple observation will tend to reveal everything about you that anyone would likely want to know. And that information, even though you do not like it being collected, will not harm you. At most it will reveal the truth about you and that actually should be a goal for all of us. The truth will set you free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you choose to interact with others privacy is off the table by definition .
All that can really be private is that which is kept only between yours ears and in no way uttered to another human being .
For whatever reasons we have a segment of the population , each with their own definition of privacy , ranting about the ability of others to know something about them .
Yet they are the ones that choose to live within society and communicate with others in a thousand different ways .
              Think about it .
If you buy a home in a neighborhood where homes always cost about $ 500,000 then you have announced to the world that your earnings or holdings are greater than most peoples .
In other words simple observation will tend to reveal everything about you that anyone would likely want to know .
And that information , even though you do not like it being collected , will not harm you .
At most it will reveal the truth about you and that actually should be a goal for all of us .
The truth will set you free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      When you choose to interact with others privacy is off the table by definition.
All that can really be private is that which is kept only between yours ears and in no way uttered to another human being.
For whatever reasons we have a segment of the population, each with their own definition of privacy, ranting about the ability of others to know something about them.
Yet they are the ones that choose to live within society and communicate with others in a thousand different ways.
              Think about it.
If you buy a home in a neighborhood where homes always cost about $500,000 then you have announced to the world that your earnings or holdings are greater than most peoples.
In other words simple observation will tend to reveal everything about you that anyone would likely want to know.
And that information, even though you do not like it being collected, will not harm you.
At most it will reveal the truth about you and that actually should be a goal for all of us.
The truth will set you free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158528</id>
	<title>Re:You are number six.</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1266350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>#6: Who is #1?<br>
#2: you are #6</htmltext>
<tokenext># 6 : Who is # 1 ?
# 2 : you are # 6</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#6: Who is #1?
#2: you are #6</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157048</id>
	<title>Re:You aren't fighting properly</title>
	<author>windex82</author>
	<datestamp>1266345000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can never really grasp the question the OP has asked.  It's really simple, I have things I don't want anyone but my closest friends to know about me and some stuff that I don't want anyone to know.  Can you guess what I do to prevent others from knowing about those things?</p><p>Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used? What portion of their resources are used?  Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.  You are the one CHOOSING to use THEIR resources.  When they begin monitoring the things that aren't being provided to you by them you will have a legitimate complaint about loosing your privacy.</p><p>Anyway, back to the question; How do I prevent people from knowing things about me that I do not want them to?  I choose NOT to post those things online; just like in real life I don't tell everyone about these things.</p><p>PS: I watched 3 episodes of lost last night and will be viewing several sites including slashdot.</p><p>PPS: I will also share that I'll be visiting fark.com and continue not having a problem with them knowing I used some of their resources; I've also exorcised my right to give up a bit of privacy by letting you all know that though I was in no way obligated to since I will not be using any of YOUR resources in doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can never really grasp the question the OP has asked .
It 's really simple , I have things I do n't want anyone but my closest friends to know about me and some stuff that I do n't want anyone to know .
Can you guess what I do to prevent others from knowing about those things ? Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used ?
What portion of their resources are used ?
Did you catch that use of the word THEIR , these are n't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them , so be it .
You are the one CHOOSING to use THEIR resources .
When they begin monitoring the things that are n't being provided to you by them you will have a legitimate complaint about loosing your privacy.Anyway , back to the question ; How do I prevent people from knowing things about me that I do not want them to ?
I choose NOT to post those things online ; just like in real life I do n't tell everyone about these things.PS : I watched 3 episodes of lost last night and will be viewing several sites including slashdot.PPS : I will also share that I 'll be visiting fark.com and continue not having a problem with them knowing I used some of their resources ; I 've also exorcised my right to give up a bit of privacy by letting you all know that though I was in no way obligated to since I will not be using any of YOUR resources in doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can never really grasp the question the OP has asked.
It's really simple, I have things I don't want anyone but my closest friends to know about me and some stuff that I don't want anyone to know.
Can you guess what I do to prevent others from knowing about those things?Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used?
What portion of their resources are used?
Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.
You are the one CHOOSING to use THEIR resources.
When they begin monitoring the things that aren't being provided to you by them you will have a legitimate complaint about loosing your privacy.Anyway, back to the question; How do I prevent people from knowing things about me that I do not want them to?
I choose NOT to post those things online; just like in real life I don't tell everyone about these things.PS: I watched 3 episodes of lost last night and will be viewing several sites including slashdot.PPS: I will also share that I'll be visiting fark.com and continue not having a problem with them knowing I used some of their resources; I've also exorcised my right to give up a bit of privacy by letting you all know that though I was in no way obligated to since I will not be using any of YOUR resources in doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157726</id>
	<title>So what you are saying is:</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1266347400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the Internet, everyone knows you are a dog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the Internet , everyone knows you are a dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the Internet, everyone knows you are a dog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158356</id>
	<title>Re:The offensive part.</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1266349740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The thing that bugs me about being endlessly monitored and categorized is that it's never used to make my life better. It's only ever done to help some random corporation improve their profits by some fraction of a percentage.</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's supposed to make your life better by reducing your costs.  The cable company gets extra revenue and thus can lower the amount you have to pay in your monthly service bill.
<br> <br>
Unfortunately, nearly all media services in the U.S. are government-licensed monopolies.  Without any competition, what ends up happening is the cable company simply pockets the extra revenue instead of passing some of it on to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that bugs me about being endlessly monitored and categorized is that it 's never used to make my life better .
It 's only ever done to help some random corporation improve their profits by some fraction of a percentage .
It 's supposed to make your life better by reducing your costs .
The cable company gets extra revenue and thus can lower the amount you have to pay in your monthly service bill .
Unfortunately , nearly all media services in the U.S. are government-licensed monopolies .
Without any competition , what ends up happening is the cable company simply pockets the extra revenue instead of passing some of it on to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that bugs me about being endlessly monitored and categorized is that it's never used to make my life better.
It's only ever done to help some random corporation improve their profits by some fraction of a percentage.
It's supposed to make your life better by reducing your costs.
The cable company gets extra revenue and thus can lower the amount you have to pay in your monthly service bill.
Unfortunately, nearly all media services in the U.S. are government-licensed monopolies.
Without any competition, what ends up happening is the cable company simply pockets the extra revenue instead of passing some of it on to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161524</id>
	<title>Information wants to be free.</title>
	<author>DamnStupidElf</author>
	<datestamp>1266320820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What part of that don't privacy advocates understand?  The way to fight back against corporate and government tracking of individuals is not to try to prevent it, but completely circumvent it by turning the cameras and databases against the very ones who currently control them.  Anonymous, Wikileaks, other groups are already proving that it's the most effective use of technology available to the general public.  Cell phone cameras and secret document liberators (hackers in news-speak) will always have the advantage of numbers against a controlling elite, and they are recognized by governments as the powerful subversive forces that they are.  It's obviously not a terrorist threat to take pictures of cops or government buildings or landmarks, but it is certainly a threat to a police state relying on its asymmetric use of monitoring technology.  Documenting the wrongdoing of official government actions is the biggest threat to those corrupt governments, and it has them running scared.  The ultimate win for individual freedom would be for every aspect of human life to be laid open to full examination by anyone who cares to look.  Your neighbor doesn't like what you do in your bedroom?  Tough; who's going to listen to him when they hear what he has to say about other people behind closed doors, or the racist decisions he makes as a manager, or more likely simply the hypocrisy he practices in his own bedroom?  The only thing to fear from a fully public society is narrow minds and the vast majority of them will be exposed as hypocrites and nothing more.  The rest will adapt or go form their own tiny closed societies and stop bothering everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of that do n't privacy advocates understand ?
The way to fight back against corporate and government tracking of individuals is not to try to prevent it , but completely circumvent it by turning the cameras and databases against the very ones who currently control them .
Anonymous , Wikileaks , other groups are already proving that it 's the most effective use of technology available to the general public .
Cell phone cameras and secret document liberators ( hackers in news-speak ) will always have the advantage of numbers against a controlling elite , and they are recognized by governments as the powerful subversive forces that they are .
It 's obviously not a terrorist threat to take pictures of cops or government buildings or landmarks , but it is certainly a threat to a police state relying on its asymmetric use of monitoring technology .
Documenting the wrongdoing of official government actions is the biggest threat to those corrupt governments , and it has them running scared .
The ultimate win for individual freedom would be for every aspect of human life to be laid open to full examination by anyone who cares to look .
Your neighbor does n't like what you do in your bedroom ?
Tough ; who 's going to listen to him when they hear what he has to say about other people behind closed doors , or the racist decisions he makes as a manager , or more likely simply the hypocrisy he practices in his own bedroom ?
The only thing to fear from a fully public society is narrow minds and the vast majority of them will be exposed as hypocrites and nothing more .
The rest will adapt or go form their own tiny closed societies and stop bothering everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of that don't privacy advocates understand?
The way to fight back against corporate and government tracking of individuals is not to try to prevent it, but completely circumvent it by turning the cameras and databases against the very ones who currently control them.
Anonymous, Wikileaks, other groups are already proving that it's the most effective use of technology available to the general public.
Cell phone cameras and secret document liberators (hackers in news-speak) will always have the advantage of numbers against a controlling elite, and they are recognized by governments as the powerful subversive forces that they are.
It's obviously not a terrorist threat to take pictures of cops or government buildings or landmarks, but it is certainly a threat to a police state relying on its asymmetric use of monitoring technology.
Documenting the wrongdoing of official government actions is the biggest threat to those corrupt governments, and it has them running scared.
The ultimate win for individual freedom would be for every aspect of human life to be laid open to full examination by anyone who cares to look.
Your neighbor doesn't like what you do in your bedroom?
Tough; who's going to listen to him when they hear what he has to say about other people behind closed doors, or the racist decisions he makes as a manager, or more likely simply the hypocrisy he practices in his own bedroom?
The only thing to fear from a fully public society is narrow minds and the vast majority of them will be exposed as hypocrites and nothing more.
The rest will adapt or go form their own tiny closed societies and stop bothering everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157962</id>
	<title>If you think you have nothing to hide...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... you already surrendered your privacy. So shut up and like it, little cog. And remember, uncle state and brother commerce know what's best for you.</p><p>If not, well, you just admitted you are obviously a criminal AND a terrorist. Please report to the nearest secret prison soonest, citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you already surrendered your privacy .
So shut up and like it , little cog .
And remember , uncle state and brother commerce know what 's best for you.If not , well , you just admitted you are obviously a criminal AND a terrorist .
Please report to the nearest secret prison soonest , citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you already surrendered your privacy.
So shut up and like it, little cog.
And remember, uncle state and brother commerce know what's best for you.If not, well, you just admitted you are obviously a criminal AND a terrorist.
Please report to the nearest secret prison soonest, citizen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31205638</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1266581040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>666!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>666 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>666!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161208</id>
	<title>Protect yourself from LSOs!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is another way for companies to track you that deleting your cookies won't fix.  Using Flash based <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local\_Shared\_Object" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Locally Stored Objects</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another way for companies to track you that deleting your cookies wo n't fix .
Using Flash based Locally Stored Objects [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another way for companies to track you that deleting your cookies won't fix.
Using Flash based Locally Stored Objects [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156324</id>
	<title>You are number six.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266342540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289</i></p><p>#6: I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!<br>#2: Ha ha ha ha ha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not want to be profiled and become member # 5534289 # 6 : I am not a number , I am a FREE MAN ! # 2 : Ha ha ha ha ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289#6: I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!#2: Ha ha ha ha ha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156702</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>malloc</author>
	<datestamp>1266343860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy.  Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net.  Embrace it.  Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.</p></div><p> <a href="https://panopticlick.eff.org/" title="eff.org">Panopticlick</a> [eff.org] wants to <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-theory-and-privacy" title="eff.org">disagree</a> [eff.org].</p><p>That, and <em>"billions"</em> / <em>"sheer volume"</em> are meaningless in the face of computers processing billions of cycles a second.  The whole point of data mining is software can find neat correlations and connections that a human never could.  You are <b>not</b> hidden in the billion bits of data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density , instead of obscurity through privacy .
Billions of people on this earth , nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net .
Embrace it .
Eventually , if enough personal data gets out there , it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available .
Panopticlick [ eff.org ] wants to disagree [ eff.org ] .That , and " billions " / " sheer volume " are meaningless in the face of computers processing billions of cycles a second .
The whole point of data mining is software can find neat correlations and connections that a human never could .
You are not hidden in the billion bits of data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy.
Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net.
Embrace it.
Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.
Panopticlick [eff.org] wants to disagree [eff.org].That, and "billions" / "sheer volume" are meaningless in the face of computers processing billions of cycles a second.
The whole point of data mining is software can find neat correlations and connections that a human never could.
You are not hidden in the billion bits of data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158032</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how much of keeping your SSN private is a "security theatre" of privacy.  There are lots of other identifiers out there like credit/debit card numbers, loyalty card numbers, phone numbers, current + previous addresses, license plate number, and probably others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much of keeping your SSN private is a " security theatre " of privacy .
There are lots of other identifiers out there like credit/debit card numbers , loyalty card numbers , phone numbers , current + previous addresses , license plate number , and probably others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much of keeping your SSN private is a "security theatre" of privacy.
There are lots of other identifiers out there like credit/debit card numbers, loyalty card numbers, phone numbers, current + previous addresses, license plate number, and probably others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157428</id>
	<title>Copyright infringement</title>
	<author>WalesAlex</author>
	<datestamp>1266346200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the author of this news item has just copypasted the ending of george orwells famous book "1984"</htmltext>
<tokenext>the author of this news item has just copypasted the ending of george orwells famous book " 1984 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the author of this news item has just copypasted the ending of george orwells famous book "1984"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156472</id>
	<title>Hiding in Plain Sight Or Going Off the Grid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to 1984.  You really have only two choices: 1) Create a persona, an alter ego, that isn't really you, and maximized it's visibility to advertisers, aggregators and data miners, or 2) Go completely off the GRID.  You will find option 2 very onerous but the most safe option.  Option 1 is not too hard as long as you can play that role all the time and with everyone.  I suppose the real bender with this option is realizing at some point you become your alter ego and then what?  Did I mention this here red pill in my hand?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to 1984 .
You really have only two choices : 1 ) Create a persona , an alter ego , that is n't really you , and maximized it 's visibility to advertisers , aggregators and data miners , or 2 ) Go completely off the GRID .
You will find option 2 very onerous but the most safe option .
Option 1 is not too hard as long as you can play that role all the time and with everyone .
I suppose the real bender with this option is realizing at some point you become your alter ego and then what ?
Did I mention this here red pill in my hand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to 1984.
You really have only two choices: 1) Create a persona, an alter ego, that isn't really you, and maximized it's visibility to advertisers, aggregators and data miners, or 2) Go completely off the GRID.
You will find option 2 very onerous but the most safe option.
Option 1 is not too hard as long as you can play that role all the time and with everyone.
I suppose the real bender with this option is realizing at some point you become your alter ego and then what?
Did I mention this here red pill in my hand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156504</id>
	<title>Queueing job "MineSoulskill5534289"</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1266343200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Creating record "Soulskill5534289"<br>Set "Slashdot Story Submission alias"="Soulskill"<br>Set "PrivacyFanatic"=true<br>Set "UsesNoScript"=true<br>Set "BlocksGoogleAnalytics"=true<br>Set "disables3rdPartyCookies"=true<br>Set "UsesIM"=true<br>Set "EncryptsIM"=true<br>Set "blocksFlashCookies"=false<br>Set "UsesATTUverse"=true<br>Set "TimeStartedCurrentATTUverseSubscriptionRange"=1/1/2009-2/16/2010<br>Set "ProbablyReadsPrivacyStatements"=true<br>Set "LovesATTUverse"=true<br>Set "EnjoysBeingProfiled"=false<br>Set "WantsToBeMember5534289"=false<br>Set "HasInflatedEgo"=false<br>Set "HadInsuranceRecordsStolenTwoYearsAgo"=true<br>Set "ChangedLifeInsurance2yearsAgo"=true<br>Set "AsksSlashdot"=true<br>Set "MoreNotes"='Ask Slashdot: Did We Lose the Privacy War? on Tuesday February 16, @11:44AM<br>Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 16, @11:44AM<br>from the no,-now-finish-your-cheerios-and-straighten-your-shirt dept.<br>background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px; privacy<br>eihab writes "I've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years. I've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics, disabling third-party cookies, encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay. Recently, I've been feeling like I'm just doing too much and still losing! No matter what I do, I know that there's a weak link somewhere, be it my ISP, Flash cookies, etc. I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it. I just can't take this anymore. I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do. I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe. One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places. Case in point: I changed my life insurance two years ago, and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients' data were stolen. That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse. Am I just too paranoid? Is privacy dead? Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore (like Facebook's founder recently said) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?"'<br>Close record.</p><p>Create job "MineSoulskill5534289" "Compare record Soulskill5534289 against all known databases".<br>Queueing job "MineSoulskill5534289".  Monitor job queue for job status.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating record " Soulskill5534289 " Set " Slashdot Story Submission alias " = " Soulskill " Set " PrivacyFanatic " = trueSet " UsesNoScript " = trueSet " BlocksGoogleAnalytics " = trueSet " disables3rdPartyCookies " = trueSet " UsesIM " = trueSet " EncryptsIM " = trueSet " blocksFlashCookies " = falseSet " UsesATTUverse " = trueSet " TimeStartedCurrentATTUverseSubscriptionRange " = 1/1/2009-2/16/2010Set " ProbablyReadsPrivacyStatements " = trueSet " LovesATTUverse " = trueSet " EnjoysBeingProfiled " = falseSet " WantsToBeMember5534289 " = falseSet " HasInflatedEgo " = falseSet " HadInsuranceRecordsStolenTwoYearsAgo " = trueSet " ChangedLifeInsurance2yearsAgo " = trueSet " AsksSlashdot " = trueSet " MoreNotes " = 'Ask Slashdot : Did We Lose the Privacy War ?
on Tuesday February 16 , @ 11 : 44AMPosted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 16 , @ 11 : 44AMfrom the no,-now-finish-your-cheerios-and-straighten-your-shirt dept.background : url ( //a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif ) ; width : 71px ; height : 53px ; privacyeihab writes " I 've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years .
I 've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics , disabling third-party cookies , encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay .
Recently , I 've been feeling like I 'm just doing too much and still losing !
No matter what I do , I know that there 's a weak link somewhere , be it my ISP , Flash cookies , etc .
I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it .
I just ca n't take this anymore .
I have nothing to hide , but I do not want to be profiled and become member # 5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do .
I know I 'm not that interesting to anyone , but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe .
One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places .
Case in point : I changed my life insurance two years ago , and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients ' data were stolen .
That medical firm did n't really need my SSN , but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse .
Am I just too paranoid ?
Is privacy dead ?
Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore ( like Facebook 's founder recently said ) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy ?
" 'Close record.Create job " MineSoulskill5534289 " " Compare record Soulskill5534289 against all known databases " .Queueing job " MineSoulskill5534289 " .
Monitor job queue for job status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creating record "Soulskill5534289"Set "Slashdot Story Submission alias"="Soulskill"Set "PrivacyFanatic"=trueSet "UsesNoScript"=trueSet "BlocksGoogleAnalytics"=trueSet "disables3rdPartyCookies"=trueSet "UsesIM"=trueSet "EncryptsIM"=trueSet "blocksFlashCookies"=falseSet "UsesATTUverse"=trueSet "TimeStartedCurrentATTUverseSubscriptionRange"=1/1/2009-2/16/2010Set "ProbablyReadsPrivacyStatements"=trueSet "LovesATTUverse"=trueSet "EnjoysBeingProfiled"=falseSet "WantsToBeMember5534289"=falseSet "HasInflatedEgo"=falseSet "HadInsuranceRecordsStolenTwoYearsAgo"=trueSet "ChangedLifeInsurance2yearsAgo"=trueSet "AsksSlashdot"=trueSet "MoreNotes"='Ask Slashdot: Did We Lose the Privacy War?
on Tuesday February 16, @11:44AMPosted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 16, @11:44AMfrom the no,-now-finish-your-cheerios-and-straighten-your-shirt dept.background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px; privacyeihab writes "I've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years.
I've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics, disabling third-party cookies, encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay.
Recently, I've been feeling like I'm just doing too much and still losing!
No matter what I do, I know that there's a weak link somewhere, be it my ISP, Flash cookies, etc.
I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.
I just can't take this anymore.
I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do.
I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe.
One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places.
Case in point: I changed my life insurance two years ago, and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients' data were stolen.
That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse.
Am I just too paranoid?
Is privacy dead?
Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore (like Facebook's founder recently said) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?
"'Close record.Create job "MineSoulskill5534289" "Compare record Soulskill5534289 against all known databases".Queueing job "MineSoulskill5534289".
Monitor job queue for job status.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156334</id>
	<title>Hobby</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone needs a hobby. If you enjoy playing cloak and dagger, then let that be your hobby. Otherwise invest your time in more worthwhile endeavors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone needs a hobby .
If you enjoy playing cloak and dagger , then let that be your hobby .
Otherwise invest your time in more worthwhile endeavors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone needs a hobby.
If you enjoy playing cloak and dagger, then let that be your hobby.
Otherwise invest your time in more worthwhile endeavors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158042</id>
	<title>Blank is Beautiful!</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1266348660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 Minutes into the Future....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 Minutes into the Future... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 Minutes into the Future....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156962</id>
	<title>The Counter Argument....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy has been bad for the internet. There, I said it. <br> <br> <br>
The net circa 1995-2004 or so, being anonymous was trivial to achieve. And what did it result in? A putrid culture of hacking, piracy, foul language and lack of manners, incessant and destructive celebrity gossip, porn up the wazoo, and more piracy. <br> <br>
The net is a cesspool, the Chinese are running around jiggling everybody's locks, and allowing comments at the end of online newspaper articles has revealed a deeply divided America, Europe and World. Sport just makes it worse, the Olympics don't bring humanity together, it divides it further. <br> <br>
You all have Big Brother because the collective WE have been such asswipes about the net as a medium. My concluding evidence for my argument: Youtube comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy has been bad for the internet .
There , I said it .
The net circa 1995-2004 or so , being anonymous was trivial to achieve .
And what did it result in ?
A putrid culture of hacking , piracy , foul language and lack of manners , incessant and destructive celebrity gossip , porn up the wazoo , and more piracy .
The net is a cesspool , the Chinese are running around jiggling everybody 's locks , and allowing comments at the end of online newspaper articles has revealed a deeply divided America , Europe and World .
Sport just makes it worse , the Olympics do n't bring humanity together , it divides it further .
You all have Big Brother because the collective WE have been such asswipes about the net as a medium .
My concluding evidence for my argument : Youtube comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy has been bad for the internet.
There, I said it.
The net circa 1995-2004 or so, being anonymous was trivial to achieve.
And what did it result in?
A putrid culture of hacking, piracy, foul language and lack of manners, incessant and destructive celebrity gossip, porn up the wazoo, and more piracy.
The net is a cesspool, the Chinese are running around jiggling everybody's locks, and allowing comments at the end of online newspaper articles has revealed a deeply divided America, Europe and World.
Sport just makes it worse, the Olympics don't bring humanity together, it divides it further.
You all have Big Brother because the collective WE have been such asswipes about the net as a medium.
My concluding evidence for my argument: Youtube comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158792</id>
	<title>Re: Privacy war</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1266351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Thank you for being a loyal AT&amp;T U-verse customer! We have received your email and have created a trouble ticket for you automatically by monitoring your web postings. Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.</p></div>
</blockquote><p> <b>Awesome</b> image!  In the future, <i>every day</i> I'll shit in a bowl in the morning.  In the evening, I'll take the three-day-old bowl and flush it, clean it out, and prepare it for tomorrow.</p><p>All so I can have more expedient customer service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for being a loyal AT&amp;T U-verse customer !
We have received your email and have created a trouble ticket for you automatically by monitoring your web postings .
Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue .
Awesome image !
In the future , every day I 'll shit in a bowl in the morning .
In the evening , I 'll take the three-day-old bowl and flush it , clean it out , and prepare it for tomorrow.All so I can have more expedient customer service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for being a loyal AT&amp;T U-verse customer!
We have received your email and have created a trouble ticket for you automatically by monitoring your web postings.
Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.
Awesome image!
In the future, every day I'll shit in a bowl in the morning.
In the evening, I'll take the three-day-old bowl and flush it, clean it out, and prepare it for tomorrow.All so I can have more expedient customer service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157496</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266346500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The upside is once you give it up once, it loses a lot of its value to you but not to everyone else, so you now have a currency anyone will accept that costs you very little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The upside is once you give it up once , it loses a lot of its value to you but not to everyone else , so you now have a currency anyone will accept that costs you very little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upside is once you give it up once, it loses a lot of its value to you but not to everyone else, so you now have a currency anyone will accept that costs you very little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160946</id>
	<title>Losing privacy is losing individuality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266318180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Losing privacy is losing individuality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing privacy is losing individuality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Losing privacy is losing individuality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156802</id>
	<title>Hi-tech civilization ought to lose privacy</title>
	<author>snikulin</author>
	<datestamp>1266344220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sensors became better and better and unless you sit in an adiabatic room, we can get a lot about your state of body and mind.<br>As we approaching the singlularity, we even can predict your behaviour and then we can replicate you in our computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sensors became better and better and unless you sit in an adiabatic room , we can get a lot about your state of body and mind.As we approaching the singlularity , we even can predict your behaviour and then we can replicate you in our computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sensors became better and better and unless you sit in an adiabatic room, we can get a lot about your state of body and mind.As we approaching the singlularity, we even can predict your behaviour and then we can replicate you in our computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157412</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy? Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266346140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy is control over your own life. If everyone knows everything about you, you are no longer in control, they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is control over your own life .
If everyone knows everything about you , you are no longer in control , they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is control over your own life.
If everyone knows everything about you, you are no longer in control, they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157492</id>
	<title>SSN</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1266346500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I know, the only people who need your SSN is the government. If anyone else asks for it the answer is "No.". Now there are some companies who need it in order to process through to a government agency, like medical business needing to redeem government funding to cover your medical costs. But that's <i>for the government</i>. Anyone that isn't getting money for you from the government does not need your SSN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , the only people who need your SSN is the government .
If anyone else asks for it the answer is " No. " .
Now there are some companies who need it in order to process through to a government agency , like medical business needing to redeem government funding to cover your medical costs .
But that 's for the government .
Anyone that is n't getting money for you from the government does not need your SSN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, the only people who need your SSN is the government.
If anyone else asks for it the answer is "No.".
Now there are some companies who need it in order to process through to a government agency, like medical business needing to redeem government funding to cover your medical costs.
But that's for the government.
Anyone that isn't getting money for you from the government does not need your SSN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165890</id>
	<title>Re:Good privacy is really difficult</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably had local lan access turned on and browsed through the local connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably had local lan access turned on and browsed through the local connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably had local lan access turned on and browsed through the local connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156906</id>
	<title>Take off your tinfoil hat...</title>
	<author>nam37</author>
	<datestamp>1266344580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.... and you'll be a happier person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.... and you 'll be a happier person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... and you'll be a happier person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157820</id>
	<title>Re:The offensive part.</title>
	<author>jeti</author>
	<datestamp>1266347760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Achievement "COUCH POTATO" unlocked!</p><p>There you go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Achievement " COUCH POTATO " unlocked ! There you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Achievement "COUCH POTATO" unlocked!There you go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159692</id>
	<title>How do maintain privacy offline?</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1266312540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure what you hope to achieve online that you haven't already lost offline.</p><p>We are tracked by an seemingly innumerable amount of sources: credit history, social security company, banks, credit card usage, stores, cell phone relationship to cell towers, land line and cell calling records, etc - I've have even read stories that cash can be tracked via the chain of bank who issued it to the person who spends or transfers it. And what about private and public security cams? Practically every store you enter into tracks you at least by a method of tracking IP addresses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure what you hope to achieve online that you have n't already lost offline.We are tracked by an seemingly innumerable amount of sources : credit history , social security company , banks , credit card usage , stores , cell phone relationship to cell towers , land line and cell calling records , etc - I 've have even read stories that cash can be tracked via the chain of bank who issued it to the person who spends or transfers it .
And what about private and public security cams ?
Practically every store you enter into tracks you at least by a method of tracking IP addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure what you hope to achieve online that you haven't already lost offline.We are tracked by an seemingly innumerable amount of sources: credit history, social security company, banks, credit card usage, stores, cell phone relationship to cell towers, land line and cell calling records, etc - I've have even read stories that cash can be tracked via the chain of bank who issued it to the person who spends or transfers it.
And what about private and public security cams?
Practically every store you enter into tracks you at least by a method of tracking IP addresses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156420</id>
	<title>Privacy? Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you want all that privacy online?<br>What makes it so different from real life?<br>Do you go everywhere with gloves or cleaning your finger prints?<br>Do you clean your foot steps?<br>Do you erase the memories of people you meet or anyone you cross on the street?</p><p>What is all this privacy you want and for what reason?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you want all that privacy online ? What makes it so different from real life ? Do you go everywhere with gloves or cleaning your finger prints ? Do you clean your foot steps ? Do you erase the memories of people you meet or anyone you cross on the street ? What is all this privacy you want and for what reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you want all that privacy online?What makes it so different from real life?Do you go everywhere with gloves or cleaning your finger prints?Do you clean your foot steps?Do you erase the memories of people you meet or anyone you cross on the street?What is all this privacy you want and for what reason?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162262</id>
	<title>Re:are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>turbotroll</author>
	<datestamp>1266324660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for your excellent comment, especially for the link to Solove's paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for your excellent comment , especially for the link to Solove 's paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for your excellent comment, especially for the link to Solove's paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156638</id>
	<title>Re:Accept and enjoy!</title>
	<author>Vayra</author>
	<datestamp>1266343680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, and then when you start thinking the government ain't all that great you get silenced before you have a chance to do anything about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and then when you start thinking the government ai n't all that great you get silenced before you have a chance to do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and then when you start thinking the government ain't all that great you get silenced before you have a chance to do anything about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156520</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1266343260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what we have in lieu of privacy is occasional access to anonymity. You can maintain that anonymity for a little more of your life for a little more effort, but maintaining it 24/7 for everything you do is increasingly difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what we have in lieu of privacy is occasional access to anonymity .
You can maintain that anonymity for a little more of your life for a little more effort , but maintaining it 24/7 for everything you do is increasingly difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what we have in lieu of privacy is occasional access to anonymity.
You can maintain that anonymity for a little more of your life for a little more effort, but maintaining it 24/7 for everything you do is increasingly difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159716</id>
	<title>Re:Tracking your TV watching is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still miss Firefly too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still miss Firefly too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still miss Firefly too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160582</id>
	<title>We need new social rules to cope with this problem</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1266316560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The short answer is yes, the privacy war has been lost. The Slashdotters who respond with more technical suggestions, or chide the original poster for trading security for convenience, are missing the real point. Human beings are social beings to the core; cutting oneself off from society is not an option, and participation in society means divulging personal information, intentionally and unintentionally. We have a problem that organizations have made an enormous leap in their ability to accumulate and mine that information, and no one is so technically adept that they can out-think every such organization. As one of my instructors put it, unplugging a computer is not a guarantee of security, because an unplugged computer is a "denial of service."</p><p>Most people have just given up trying.</p><p>We need new social rules. I think the most pressing problem is that individuals are nearly totally exposed, but large institutions are not. The first thing we should do is demand more visibility on the part of large corporate institutions, whether "private" corporations or government entities. The second, which will take time, is to think through and create new social norms, about what should and should not be public knowledge about an individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The short answer is yes , the privacy war has been lost .
The Slashdotters who respond with more technical suggestions , or chide the original poster for trading security for convenience , are missing the real point .
Human beings are social beings to the core ; cutting oneself off from society is not an option , and participation in society means divulging personal information , intentionally and unintentionally .
We have a problem that organizations have made an enormous leap in their ability to accumulate and mine that information , and no one is so technically adept that they can out-think every such organization .
As one of my instructors put it , unplugging a computer is not a guarantee of security , because an unplugged computer is a " denial of service .
" Most people have just given up trying.We need new social rules .
I think the most pressing problem is that individuals are nearly totally exposed , but large institutions are not .
The first thing we should do is demand more visibility on the part of large corporate institutions , whether " private " corporations or government entities .
The second , which will take time , is to think through and create new social norms , about what should and should not be public knowledge about an individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short answer is yes, the privacy war has been lost.
The Slashdotters who respond with more technical suggestions, or chide the original poster for trading security for convenience, are missing the real point.
Human beings are social beings to the core; cutting oneself off from society is not an option, and participation in society means divulging personal information, intentionally and unintentionally.
We have a problem that organizations have made an enormous leap in their ability to accumulate and mine that information, and no one is so technically adept that they can out-think every such organization.
As one of my instructors put it, unplugging a computer is not a guarantee of security, because an unplugged computer is a "denial of service.
"Most people have just given up trying.We need new social rules.
I think the most pressing problem is that individuals are nearly totally exposed, but large institutions are not.
The first thing we should do is demand more visibility on the part of large corporate institutions, whether "private" corporations or government entities.
The second, which will take time, is to think through and create new social norms, about what should and should not be public knowledge about an individual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161516</id>
	<title>Re:are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266320760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's okay, we know those thigh high boots and garters you bought last week, were in fact for yourself, and not for your imaginary girlfriend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's okay , we know those thigh high boots and garters you bought last week , were in fact for yourself , and not for your imaginary girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's okay, we know those thigh high boots and garters you bought last week, were in fact for yourself, and not for your imaginary girlfriend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</id>
	<title>Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given how interconnected our world is, if you want to participate, you have to do it in public.  You have to connect to someone else's machine, hook up to someone else's fiber, talk to someone who you can't immediately trust, and you have to do it in the open.</p><p>That is to say, SSL, TOR, NoFlash, NoScript etc, still don't have a place in our lives as geeks.  Just, forget privacy.</p><p>Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy.  Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net.  Embrace it.  Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how interconnected our world is , if you want to participate , you have to do it in public .
You have to connect to someone else 's machine , hook up to someone else 's fiber , talk to someone who you ca n't immediately trust , and you have to do it in the open.That is to say , SSL , TOR , NoFlash , NoScript etc , still do n't have a place in our lives as geeks .
Just , forget privacy.Besides , I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density , instead of obscurity through privacy .
Billions of people on this earth , nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net .
Embrace it .
Eventually , if enough personal data gets out there , it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how interconnected our world is, if you want to participate, you have to do it in public.
You have to connect to someone else's machine, hook up to someone else's fiber, talk to someone who you can't immediately trust, and you have to do it in the open.That is to say, SSL, TOR, NoFlash, NoScript etc, still don't have a place in our lives as geeks.
Just, forget privacy.Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy.
Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net.
Embrace it.
Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157786</id>
	<title>How to op out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266347640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.theonion.com/content/video/google\_opt\_out\_feature\_lets\_users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/google \ _opt \ _out \ _feature \ _lets \ _users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theonion.com/content/video/google\_opt\_out\_feature\_lets\_users</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156386</id>
	<title>Losing the war..</title>
	<author>y4ku</author>
	<datestamp>1266342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy is dead, but the way things are going everything that really matters will be censored anyways.

Things are going the wrong way for the internet these days...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is dead , but the way things are going everything that really matters will be censored anyways .
Things are going the wrong way for the internet these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is dead, but the way things are going everything that really matters will be censored anyways.
Things are going the wrong way for the internet these days...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157940</id>
	<title>what about the myriad of cameras out there?</title>
	<author>garaged</author>
	<datestamp>1266348180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to tell you this, but you are being monitored way more than you are expressing here, there are a LOT of pictures and videos from you, recorded phone calls, GPS tracks deducted from your IPs, and the list just goes on.</p><p>Don't mind a lot about people knowing about you, or seeing you, mind about misusage, fight the people that does wrong, not the people that does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to tell you this , but you are being monitored way more than you are expressing here , there are a LOT of pictures and videos from you , recorded phone calls , GPS tracks deducted from your IPs , and the list just goes on.Do n't mind a lot about people knowing about you , or seeing you , mind about misusage , fight the people that does wrong , not the people that does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to tell you this, but you are being monitored way more than you are expressing here, there are a LOT of pictures and videos from you, recorded phone calls, GPS tracks deducted from your IPs, and the list just goes on.Don't mind a lot about people knowing about you, or seeing you, mind about misusage, fight the people that does wrong, not the people that does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159962</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1266313740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I want to keep my private and public persona separate.  I want multiple public personas as well.  I don't want my family to know who I voted for, or even which side I favor.  I have a mother who would be extremely upset if she knew I voted for Obama; and sister who'd be angry to know if I did not vote for Obama; a brother who thinks I voted for Ron Paul; a weird hippy uncle who thinks I voted for Les Paul.  When someone says "it's a terrible shame that so many terrorists are now federal court judges" I just nod my head and try to change the subject.  I have friends who would never speak to me again if they found out I was pro-life; and friends who would never speak to me again if they found out I was pro-choice.  I know some people who would be angry with me if they found out I was a moderate center leaning voter.<br><br>To be serious a minute; public shame does not diminish just because everyone else has some other public shame.  Seeing my bosses drunken party photos would not diminish the embarrassment of having my own secrets revealed.  I know some people honestly believe the opposite, that no one would be ashamed of being naked if everyone else was naked too, but I don't think that's necessarily true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I want to keep my private and public persona separate .
I want multiple public personas as well .
I do n't want my family to know who I voted for , or even which side I favor .
I have a mother who would be extremely upset if she knew I voted for Obama ; and sister who 'd be angry to know if I did not vote for Obama ; a brother who thinks I voted for Ron Paul ; a weird hippy uncle who thinks I voted for Les Paul .
When someone says " it 's a terrible shame that so many terrorists are now federal court judges " I just nod my head and try to change the subject .
I have friends who would never speak to me again if they found out I was pro-life ; and friends who would never speak to me again if they found out I was pro-choice .
I know some people who would be angry with me if they found out I was a moderate center leaning voter.To be serious a minute ; public shame does not diminish just because everyone else has some other public shame .
Seeing my bosses drunken party photos would not diminish the embarrassment of having my own secrets revealed .
I know some people honestly believe the opposite , that no one would be ashamed of being naked if everyone else was naked too , but I do n't think that 's necessarily true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I want to keep my private and public persona separate.
I want multiple public personas as well.
I don't want my family to know who I voted for, or even which side I favor.
I have a mother who would be extremely upset if she knew I voted for Obama; and sister who'd be angry to know if I did not vote for Obama; a brother who thinks I voted for Ron Paul; a weird hippy uncle who thinks I voted for Les Paul.
When someone says "it's a terrible shame that so many terrorists are now federal court judges" I just nod my head and try to change the subject.
I have friends who would never speak to me again if they found out I was pro-life; and friends who would never speak to me again if they found out I was pro-choice.
I know some people who would be angry with me if they found out I was a moderate center leaning voter.To be serious a minute; public shame does not diminish just because everyone else has some other public shame.
Seeing my bosses drunken party photos would not diminish the embarrassment of having my own secrets revealed.
I know some people honestly believe the opposite, that no one would be ashamed of being naked if everyone else was naked too, but I don't think that's necessarily true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158572</id>
	<title>I sympathize</title>
	<author>KGBear</author>
	<datestamp>1266350520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But what ticks me off is that corporations are making bucketloads of money from information that belongs to me, at the same time as corporations are doing everything in their power to prevent me from using the information that belongs to them. All I want is some fundamental fairness. Part of the problem is that I cannot purchase some products and services with money alone; I am forced to fork over information in addition to money. On the other hand they make it as hard as possible, sometimes they make it illegal, for me to use products and services I payed for in any way I see fit - you know, as if what I purchased was actually my property. What's more, we have indeed lost this battle when most people here say "it's over - get used to it." It's *my* privacy you're selling for your own convenience, punk!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what ticks me off is that corporations are making bucketloads of money from information that belongs to me , at the same time as corporations are doing everything in their power to prevent me from using the information that belongs to them .
All I want is some fundamental fairness .
Part of the problem is that I can not purchase some products and services with money alone ; I am forced to fork over information in addition to money .
On the other hand they make it as hard as possible , sometimes they make it illegal , for me to use products and services I payed for in any way I see fit - you know , as if what I purchased was actually my property .
What 's more , we have indeed lost this battle when most people here say " it 's over - get used to it .
" It 's * my * privacy you 're selling for your own convenience , punk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what ticks me off is that corporations are making bucketloads of money from information that belongs to me, at the same time as corporations are doing everything in their power to prevent me from using the information that belongs to them.
All I want is some fundamental fairness.
Part of the problem is that I cannot purchase some products and services with money alone; I am forced to fork over information in addition to money.
On the other hand they make it as hard as possible, sometimes they make it illegal, for me to use products and services I payed for in any way I see fit - you know, as if what I purchased was actually my property.
What's more, we have indeed lost this battle when most people here say "it's over - get used to it.
" It's *my* privacy you're selling for your own convenience, punk!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160974</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>pluther</author>
	<datestamp>1266318360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you can do what I did, and just make one up.</p><p>Last time I did this, the conversation went like this:<br>Me: Social Security Number xxx-xx-xxxx<br>Phone guy: Hm. The computer is saying that's not a valid SSN.<br>Me: Yeah, I've never had service with you before.<br>Phone guy: That shouldn't make any difference....<br>Me: Well, apparently it does.</p><p>Phone guy: Hold on, let me get my supervisor.<br>(music)</p><p>Supervisor: Sir, there seems to be a problem with your social security number. We're unable to validate it.<br>Me: Yeah, I've never had phone service with you before.<br>Supervisor: That shouldn't matter.<br>Me: Apparently it does.<br>Supervisor:  OK. Hold on one minute while I override...<br>Me: No problem.</p><p>Voila, phone.</p><p>Of course, this was back in Ye Olden Dayes, when phones were utilities attached to homes, rather than something you picked up in a kiosk at the mall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can do what I did , and just make one up.Last time I did this , the conversation went like this : Me : Social Security Number xxx-xx-xxxxPhone guy : Hm .
The computer is saying that 's not a valid SSN.Me : Yeah , I 've never had service with you before.Phone guy : That should n't make any difference....Me : Well , apparently it does.Phone guy : Hold on , let me get my supervisor .
( music ) Supervisor : Sir , there seems to be a problem with your social security number .
We 're unable to validate it.Me : Yeah , I 've never had phone service with you before.Supervisor : That should n't matter.Me : Apparently it does.Supervisor : OK. Hold on one minute while I override...Me : No problem.Voila , phone.Of course , this was back in Ye Olden Dayes , when phones were utilities attached to homes , rather than something you picked up in a kiosk at the mall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can do what I did, and just make one up.Last time I did this, the conversation went like this:Me: Social Security Number xxx-xx-xxxxPhone guy: Hm.
The computer is saying that's not a valid SSN.Me: Yeah, I've never had service with you before.Phone guy: That shouldn't make any difference....Me: Well, apparently it does.Phone guy: Hold on, let me get my supervisor.
(music)Supervisor: Sir, there seems to be a problem with your social security number.
We're unable to validate it.Me: Yeah, I've never had phone service with you before.Supervisor: That shouldn't matter.Me: Apparently it does.Supervisor:  OK. Hold on one minute while I override...Me: No problem.Voila, phone.Of course, this was back in Ye Olden Dayes, when phones were utilities attached to homes, rather than something you picked up in a kiosk at the mall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157114</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1266345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . that is, until the data mining tools become smart enough. (or maybe they already are - who knows? )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
that is , until the data mining tools become smart enough .
( or maybe they already are - who knows ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
that is, until the data mining tools become smart enough.
(or maybe they already are - who knows?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156554</id>
	<title>No, you're confusing what the war is about.</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1266343380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the war of privacy- it's the war of privacy vs. convenience.<br> <br>
Facebook lets me keep in touch and aware of what my friends are doing. On the other hand, photos of me doing something that may reflect poorly on myself to an employer or other friends. I have pretty strict privacy settings on Facebook, but the reality is that something bad could easily be associated with my profile and seen by many before I could get it pulled.
<br> <br>On the other hand, if I didn't share quite a bit of personal info on Facebook, I wouldn't even be aware when I was tagged in a photo.
<br> <br>Today, people are accepting convenience at the sacrifice of some privacy. It's nice when I can call up the cable company and have them able to see what services I have, that I'm paying the bill, and the modem has the wrong DOCSIS file. On the other hand, I'm in a database that is easier to access than ever. I accept the sacrifice for convenience when I have to work with the cable company.
<br> <br>Or credit cards. The majority of my purchases are now associated with my SSN in a database. The ability to track my spending and have some degree of purchase security is worth the sacrifice for me, so I choose to use electronic payment.
<br> <br>So did we lose, giving up so much? On one hand, there are plenty of alternatives- I can buy online with a Visa Gift Card, registered to whatever name and address and purchased in cash. I can buy in cash in person. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible NOT to be in a database- even if you were to forego electricity, television, cable, etc., you'd still be in a government tax database. Someone I know got a letter last year saying "an IRS employee with your and a couple million other taxpayer documents, including your taxpayer ID number, full name, and address, lost their laptop. We'll try not to let it happen again. Here's a year of credit monitoring from one of the three bureaus, then you're on your own. Seeya!"
<br> <br>So, yes, to some degree we lost. It's hard to avoid changes that the rest of society is fine with. Living like a hermit in a powerless shack in the woods is still possible, but for the average person, it definitely has been eroded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the war of privacy- it 's the war of privacy vs. convenience . Facebook lets me keep in touch and aware of what my friends are doing .
On the other hand , photos of me doing something that may reflect poorly on myself to an employer or other friends .
I have pretty strict privacy settings on Facebook , but the reality is that something bad could easily be associated with my profile and seen by many before I could get it pulled .
On the other hand , if I did n't share quite a bit of personal info on Facebook , I would n't even be aware when I was tagged in a photo .
Today , people are accepting convenience at the sacrifice of some privacy .
It 's nice when I can call up the cable company and have them able to see what services I have , that I 'm paying the bill , and the modem has the wrong DOCSIS file .
On the other hand , I 'm in a database that is easier to access than ever .
I accept the sacrifice for convenience when I have to work with the cable company .
Or credit cards .
The majority of my purchases are now associated with my SSN in a database .
The ability to track my spending and have some degree of purchase security is worth the sacrifice for me , so I choose to use electronic payment .
So did we lose , giving up so much ?
On one hand , there are plenty of alternatives- I can buy online with a Visa Gift Card , registered to whatever name and address and purchased in cash .
I can buy in cash in person .
On the other hand , it 's virtually impossible NOT to be in a database- even if you were to forego electricity , television , cable , etc. , you 'd still be in a government tax database .
Someone I know got a letter last year saying " an IRS employee with your and a couple million other taxpayer documents , including your taxpayer ID number , full name , and address , lost their laptop .
We 'll try not to let it happen again .
Here 's a year of credit monitoring from one of the three bureaus , then you 're on your own .
Seeya ! " So , yes , to some degree we lost .
It 's hard to avoid changes that the rest of society is fine with .
Living like a hermit in a powerless shack in the woods is still possible , but for the average person , it definitely has been eroded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the war of privacy- it's the war of privacy vs. convenience. 
Facebook lets me keep in touch and aware of what my friends are doing.
On the other hand, photos of me doing something that may reflect poorly on myself to an employer or other friends.
I have pretty strict privacy settings on Facebook, but the reality is that something bad could easily be associated with my profile and seen by many before I could get it pulled.
On the other hand, if I didn't share quite a bit of personal info on Facebook, I wouldn't even be aware when I was tagged in a photo.
Today, people are accepting convenience at the sacrifice of some privacy.
It's nice when I can call up the cable company and have them able to see what services I have, that I'm paying the bill, and the modem has the wrong DOCSIS file.
On the other hand, I'm in a database that is easier to access than ever.
I accept the sacrifice for convenience when I have to work with the cable company.
Or credit cards.
The majority of my purchases are now associated with my SSN in a database.
The ability to track my spending and have some degree of purchase security is worth the sacrifice for me, so I choose to use electronic payment.
So did we lose, giving up so much?
On one hand, there are plenty of alternatives- I can buy online with a Visa Gift Card, registered to whatever name and address and purchased in cash.
I can buy in cash in person.
On the other hand, it's virtually impossible NOT to be in a database- even if you were to forego electricity, television, cable, etc., you'd still be in a government tax database.
Someone I know got a letter last year saying "an IRS employee with your and a couple million other taxpayer documents, including your taxpayer ID number, full name, and address, lost their laptop.
We'll try not to let it happen again.
Here's a year of credit monitoring from one of the three bureaus, then you're on your own.
Seeya!"
 So, yes, to some degree we lost.
It's hard to avoid changes that the rest of society is fine with.
Living like a hermit in a powerless shack in the woods is still possible, but for the average person, it definitely has been eroded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159220</id>
	<title>Re:Accept and enjoy!</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266353340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went, everyone knew what I wanted.</p></div><p>I think most attractive women would get tired of hearing it rather quickly, although a subset would probably enjoy it immensely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went , everyone knew what I wanted.I think most attractive women would get tired of hearing it rather quickly , although a subset would probably enjoy it immensely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went, everyone knew what I wanted.I think most attractive women would get tired of hearing it rather quickly, although a subset would probably enjoy it immensely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158024</id>
	<title>Fight On!!</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1266348540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, I've wired some extra money to that Swiss Bank account you don't know your wife knows about, just to help!!</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I 've wired some extra money to that Swiss Bank account you do n't know your wife knows about , just to help !
! Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I've wired some extra money to that Swiss Bank account you don't know your wife knows about, just to help!
!Pug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165694</id>
	<title>Privacy or access?</title>
	<author>Paleolibertarian</author>
	<datestamp>1266347700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't that we have less privacy. It is that the information about us is now much more accessible. Computers and databases along with marketing droids and NSA/CIA/KGB(homeland security) needs demand that as much data be compiled as possible for use by whomever wants it for a price. In the past compiling such huge databases just wasn't practical. It wasn't because the data wasn't out there but it was in the form of paper in files but not on computer media. Now everything is digitized and available at a moments notice.</p><p>If you want privacy, or at least more of it there are steps you can take which make personal data harder to get in the first place but unless you live in a cave in the middle of the desert with no communication or interaction with other humans you will never achieve total privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't that we have less privacy .
It is that the information about us is now much more accessible .
Computers and databases along with marketing droids and NSA/CIA/KGB ( homeland security ) needs demand that as much data be compiled as possible for use by whomever wants it for a price .
In the past compiling such huge databases just was n't practical .
It was n't because the data was n't out there but it was in the form of paper in files but not on computer media .
Now everything is digitized and available at a moments notice.If you want privacy , or at least more of it there are steps you can take which make personal data harder to get in the first place but unless you live in a cave in the middle of the desert with no communication or interaction with other humans you will never achieve total privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't that we have less privacy.
It is that the information about us is now much more accessible.
Computers and databases along with marketing droids and NSA/CIA/KGB(homeland security) needs demand that as much data be compiled as possible for use by whomever wants it for a price.
In the past compiling such huge databases just wasn't practical.
It wasn't because the data wasn't out there but it was in the form of paper in files but not on computer media.
Now everything is digitized and available at a moments notice.If you want privacy, or at least more of it there are steps you can take which make personal data harder to get in the first place but unless you live in a cave in the middle of the desert with no communication or interaction with other humans you will never achieve total privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156464</id>
	<title>Stop stressing</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1266343020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look... not to be a spoil sport, but who cares?  So you don't have any privacy... is it costing you money?  Is it costing you jobs?  Is it harming you?  The alternative is to go "off the grid"... and you *can* do that if it's worth it to you.  It's not to me.  So just accept that companies will look over your shoulder and don't do stuff that you're going to be ashamed of, counting on the fact that the law of averages will shield you.  This is no different, really, than living in a small town.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look... not to be a spoil sport , but who cares ?
So you do n't have any privacy... is it costing you money ?
Is it costing you jobs ?
Is it harming you ?
The alternative is to go " off the grid " ... and you * can * do that if it 's worth it to you .
It 's not to me .
So just accept that companies will look over your shoulder and do n't do stuff that you 're going to be ashamed of , counting on the fact that the law of averages will shield you .
This is no different , really , than living in a small town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look... not to be a spoil sport, but who cares?
So you don't have any privacy... is it costing you money?
Is it costing you jobs?
Is it harming you?
The alternative is to go "off the grid"... and you *can* do that if it's worth it to you.
It's not to me.
So just accept that companies will look over your shoulder and don't do stuff that you're going to be ashamed of, counting on the fact that the law of averages will shield you.
This is no different, really, than living in a small town.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159668</id>
	<title>Security starts with you.</title>
	<author>shadowfaxcrx</author>
	<datestamp>1266312420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse"</p><p>You're right. They didn't. So why did you give it to them? You aren't required to give out your SSN to anyone but certain government agencies and your employer for tax purposes.  Credit checks can be run without a social. Television can certainly be delivered without it. It's really crazy that people run around scared of identity theft, and then give out their SSN to the cable guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That medical firm did n't really need my SSN , but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse " You 're right .
They did n't .
So why did you give it to them ?
You are n't required to give out your SSN to anyone but certain government agencies and your employer for tax purposes .
Credit checks can be run without a social .
Television can certainly be delivered without it .
It 's really crazy that people run around scared of identity theft , and then give out their SSN to the cable guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse"You're right.
They didn't.
So why did you give it to them?
You aren't required to give out your SSN to anyone but certain government agencies and your employer for tax purposes.
Credit checks can be run without a social.
Television can certainly be delivered without it.
It's really crazy that people run around scared of identity theft, and then give out their SSN to the cable guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159884</id>
	<title>Other data being collected about you!</title>
	<author>Tracer221</author>
	<datestamp>1266313440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's an interesting article about how facebook, plaxo, linkedin, and google share your data:

<a href="http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Google-Facebook-share-data-with-Plaxo-LinkedIn/0,130061733,339284989,00.htm" title="zdnet.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Google-Facebook-share-data-with-Plaxo-LinkedIn/0,130061733,339284989,00.htm</a> [zdnet.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an interesting article about how facebook , plaxo , linkedin , and google share your data : http : //www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Google-Facebook-share-data-with-Plaxo-LinkedIn/0,130061733,339284989,00.htm [ zdnet.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an interesting article about how facebook, plaxo, linkedin, and google share your data:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Google-Facebook-share-data-with-Plaxo-LinkedIn/0,130061733,339284989,00.htm [zdnet.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156418</id>
	<title>Fuck you buddy</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1266342840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really want to have privacy in the digital age the only winning move is not to play. The people in control of things want to endlessly analyze every single thing they can in order to better control and shape society to their will and it is too easy to get that data through computers.</p><p>See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Trap\_(television\_documentary\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">The Trap</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really want to have privacy in the digital age the only winning move is not to play .
The people in control of things want to endlessly analyze every single thing they can in order to better control and shape society to their will and it is too easy to get that data through computers.See : The Trap [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really want to have privacy in the digital age the only winning move is not to play.
The people in control of things want to endlessly analyze every single thing they can in order to better control and shape society to their will and it is too easy to get that data through computers.See: The Trap [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157192</id>
	<title>Re:You aren't fighting properly</title>
	<author>RJFerret</author>
	<datestamp>1266345420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never give my SS# except to banks, employers, the like.  When companies ask for it I decline and there's almost always an alternative.  I don't recall what AT&amp;T did when I signed up for U-verse, but now that I bailed on cable and watch Hulu, obviously they can track not just what I watch, but also what I search for.</p><p>However on the broader concept, with the Google Buzz d&#233;b&#226;cle recently, we were reminded that privacy isn't something we should lightly give up, as privacy often equates to security and safety.</p><p>Sadly, for the masses, there's less awareness of how two and two may be put together.  I once, from an "anonymous" account's profile, web-searched a Latin quote to try to figure out what it meant--only it wasn't a quote.  I discovered only one person had ever used it on the web.  From the forum posting I'd found with an email, I discovered their place of work and their real name, picture, a personal web server, with more pictures, a white pages search provided home phone and address.</p><p>It seems to me that nowadays you protect yourself best you can, don't be too "unique", but also don't impede your quality of life over it.  You just want there to be other low-hanging fruit...</p><p>(That being said, when I won a competition prize worth a few hundred, a company connected my real name with my screen name on their results page--I emailed them pointing out they were compromising my safety and they took one off.)</p><p>As more people have their houses broken into because of MyBook and Facepage "going away for two weeks vacation" postings...well it was news once, maybe it'll become so commonplace and accepted it never hits the public consciousness?</p><p>Meanwhile appreciate the libraries that don't accept government funds and aren't required to keep a record of what you check out.  On the flip side, don't complain and request they retain that info when you go back and ask them for the title of something you read a few months ago?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never give my SS # except to banks , employers , the like .
When companies ask for it I decline and there 's almost always an alternative .
I do n't recall what AT&amp;T did when I signed up for U-verse , but now that I bailed on cable and watch Hulu , obviously they can track not just what I watch , but also what I search for.However on the broader concept , with the Google Buzz d   b   cle recently , we were reminded that privacy is n't something we should lightly give up , as privacy often equates to security and safety.Sadly , for the masses , there 's less awareness of how two and two may be put together .
I once , from an " anonymous " account 's profile , web-searched a Latin quote to try to figure out what it meant--only it was n't a quote .
I discovered only one person had ever used it on the web .
From the forum posting I 'd found with an email , I discovered their place of work and their real name , picture , a personal web server , with more pictures , a white pages search provided home phone and address.It seems to me that nowadays you protect yourself best you can , do n't be too " unique " , but also do n't impede your quality of life over it .
You just want there to be other low-hanging fruit... ( That being said , when I won a competition prize worth a few hundred , a company connected my real name with my screen name on their results page--I emailed them pointing out they were compromising my safety and they took one off .
) As more people have their houses broken into because of MyBook and Facepage " going away for two weeks vacation " postings...well it was news once , maybe it 'll become so commonplace and accepted it never hits the public consciousness ? Meanwhile appreciate the libraries that do n't accept government funds and are n't required to keep a record of what you check out .
On the flip side , do n't complain and request they retain that info when you go back and ask them for the title of something you read a few months ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never give my SS# except to banks, employers, the like.
When companies ask for it I decline and there's almost always an alternative.
I don't recall what AT&amp;T did when I signed up for U-verse, but now that I bailed on cable and watch Hulu, obviously they can track not just what I watch, but also what I search for.However on the broader concept, with the Google Buzz débâcle recently, we were reminded that privacy isn't something we should lightly give up, as privacy often equates to security and safety.Sadly, for the masses, there's less awareness of how two and two may be put together.
I once, from an "anonymous" account's profile, web-searched a Latin quote to try to figure out what it meant--only it wasn't a quote.
I discovered only one person had ever used it on the web.
From the forum posting I'd found with an email, I discovered their place of work and their real name, picture, a personal web server, with more pictures, a white pages search provided home phone and address.It seems to me that nowadays you protect yourself best you can, don't be too "unique", but also don't impede your quality of life over it.
You just want there to be other low-hanging fruit...(That being said, when I won a competition prize worth a few hundred, a company connected my real name with my screen name on their results page--I emailed them pointing out they were compromising my safety and they took one off.
)As more people have their houses broken into because of MyBook and Facepage "going away for two weeks vacation" postings...well it was news once, maybe it'll become so commonplace and accepted it never hits the public consciousness?Meanwhile appreciate the libraries that don't accept government funds and aren't required to keep a record of what you check out.
On the flip side, don't complain and request they retain that info when you go back and ask them for the title of something you read a few months ago?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157770</id>
	<title>Obfuscate, prevaricate, and lie</title>
	<author>RandCraw</author>
	<datestamp>1266347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't hide from Big Brother, but you can confuse the hell out of him.</p><p>Do this by behaving inconsistently, in ways that complicate spammeisters from slotting your into a standard bucket.</p><p>Leave the TV tuner box set to a channel you hate (e.g. Country Music TV, Fox News, MSNBC, TLC, Family Channel) and then turn off the set.  Choose a different odious channel each time.  Or choose channels randomly.</p><p>Lie on the shopper discount card questionaires.  In time, most places will disambiguate you (if you use a credit card), but your misbehavior will probably flag you as a spoil sport who won't be receptive to spam.</p><p>Even if this stuff doesn't protect you, it'll make you feel like you're taking arms against being stamped, indexed, briefed, and debriefed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't hide from Big Brother , but you can confuse the hell out of him.Do this by behaving inconsistently , in ways that complicate spammeisters from slotting your into a standard bucket.Leave the TV tuner box set to a channel you hate ( e.g .
Country Music TV , Fox News , MSNBC , TLC , Family Channel ) and then turn off the set .
Choose a different odious channel each time .
Or choose channels randomly.Lie on the shopper discount card questionaires .
In time , most places will disambiguate you ( if you use a credit card ) , but your misbehavior will probably flag you as a spoil sport who wo n't be receptive to spam.Even if this stuff does n't protect you , it 'll make you feel like you 're taking arms against being stamped , indexed , briefed , and debriefed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't hide from Big Brother, but you can confuse the hell out of him.Do this by behaving inconsistently, in ways that complicate spammeisters from slotting your into a standard bucket.Leave the TV tuner box set to a channel you hate (e.g.
Country Music TV, Fox News, MSNBC, TLC, Family Channel) and then turn off the set.
Choose a different odious channel each time.
Or choose channels randomly.Lie on the shopper discount card questionaires.
In time, most places will disambiguate you (if you use a credit card), but your misbehavior will probably flag you as a spoil sport who won't be receptive to spam.Even if this stuff doesn't protect you, it'll make you feel like you're taking arms against being stamped, indexed, briefed, and debriefed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158806</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T, your world wiretapped.</title>
	<author>virtualXTC</author>
	<datestamp>1266351480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No you aren't paranoid.<br> <br>
AT&amp;T has a horrible record when it comes to privacy, especially with illegal wiretaps, so much so that the AT&amp;T logo should be changed to "Your world wiretapped."  There was a PBS NOVA special about this, and the CIA has intentionally placed their wiretapping boxes inside AT&amp;T's San Francisco building they will intercept DOMESTIC calls.  They don't care about the legality of what they are doing and were said to actually listen to  domestic calls between citizens because they were unable to separate them from the international calls.  This could have easily been avoided had they placed their system in San Luis Obispo.
<br> <br>
Basically there is a lot of money floating around to incentivise such activities.  Here in Boston, homeland security helped pay for the T (bus/train) turnstile upgrades to 'Charlie' cards (RFID) so that people can be more easily tracked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No you are n't paranoid .
AT&amp;T has a horrible record when it comes to privacy , especially with illegal wiretaps , so much so that the AT&amp;T logo should be changed to " Your world wiretapped .
" There was a PBS NOVA special about this , and the CIA has intentionally placed their wiretapping boxes inside AT&amp;T 's San Francisco building they will intercept DOMESTIC calls .
They do n't care about the legality of what they are doing and were said to actually listen to domestic calls between citizens because they were unable to separate them from the international calls .
This could have easily been avoided had they placed their system in San Luis Obispo .
Basically there is a lot of money floating around to incentivise such activities .
Here in Boston , homeland security helped pay for the T ( bus/train ) turnstile upgrades to 'Charlie ' cards ( RFID ) so that people can be more easily tracked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you aren't paranoid.
AT&amp;T has a horrible record when it comes to privacy, especially with illegal wiretaps, so much so that the AT&amp;T logo should be changed to "Your world wiretapped.
"  There was a PBS NOVA special about this, and the CIA has intentionally placed their wiretapping boxes inside AT&amp;T's San Francisco building they will intercept DOMESTIC calls.
They don't care about the legality of what they are doing and were said to actually listen to  domestic calls between citizens because they were unable to separate them from the international calls.
This could have easily been avoided had they placed their system in San Luis Obispo.
Basically there is a lot of money floating around to incentivise such activities.
Here in Boston, homeland security helped pay for the T (bus/train) turnstile upgrades to 'Charlie' cards (RFID) so that people can be more easily tracked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157124</id>
	<title>Re:Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1266345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.</p></div><p>Yup.  We know where you live.  And we're going to use that information just as effectively as we used the majority we had in congress.  Be very afraid!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So if you are a gay homosexual you can expect that your medical records will be accessed.</p></div><p>What if I'm just a homosexual OR gay, not a gay homosexual?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.Yup .
We know where you live .
And we 're going to use that information just as effectively as we used the majority we had in congress .
Be very afraid ! So if you are a gay homosexual you can expect that your medical records will be accessed.What if I 'm just a homosexual OR gay , not a gay homosexual ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.Yup.
We know where you live.
And we're going to use that information just as effectively as we used the majority we had in congress.
Be very afraid!So if you are a gay homosexual you can expect that your medical records will be accessed.What if I'm just a homosexual OR gay, not a gay homosexual?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156396</id>
	<title>The only solution is complete non-participation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will have to unplug, my friend.  Even then privacy will become increasingly difficult as passive tracking becomes more advanced (cameras, RFID scanners+IDs, etc.).  Life as a hermit is about it, then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will have to unplug , my friend .
Even then privacy will become increasingly difficult as passive tracking becomes more advanced ( cameras , RFID scanners + IDs , etc. ) .
Life as a hermit is about it , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will have to unplug, my friend.
Even then privacy will become increasingly difficult as passive tracking becomes more advanced (cameras, RFID scanners+IDs, etc.).
Life as a hermit is about it, then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165314</id>
	<title>Re:are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the question is not that somebody has profiled your viewing habits, but that you consider such effluvia about you to be some sort of vital intrinsic part of your identity, worth protecting, worth fighting for, or worth even caring about</p></div><p>it doesn't matter what I think. it matters what others think about me because I watch whatever.  anonymity allows me to project a needed facade to strangers sot that I appear approacheable.  I get to choose which facets of myself they get to see.. without privacy, I'm an open book to everyone.  this is a critical weakness because it allows others who are smarter and/or have more resources to manipulate me and my life in ways I cannot control. this is why information whores want to know what I watch in the first place (in this example).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the question is not that somebody has profiled your viewing habits , but that you consider such effluvia about you to be some sort of vital intrinsic part of your identity , worth protecting , worth fighting for , or worth even caring aboutit does n't matter what I think .
it matters what others think about me because I watch whatever .
anonymity allows me to project a needed facade to strangers sot that I appear approacheable .
I get to choose which facets of myself they get to see.. without privacy , I 'm an open book to everyone .
this is a critical weakness because it allows others who are smarter and/or have more resources to manipulate me and my life in ways I can not control .
this is why information whores want to know what I watch in the first place ( in this example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the question is not that somebody has profiled your viewing habits, but that you consider such effluvia about you to be some sort of vital intrinsic part of your identity, worth protecting, worth fighting for, or worth even caring aboutit doesn't matter what I think.
it matters what others think about me because I watch whatever.
anonymity allows me to project a needed facade to strangers sot that I appear approacheable.
I get to choose which facets of myself they get to see.. without privacy, I'm an open book to everyone.
this is a critical weakness because it allows others who are smarter and/or have more resources to manipulate me and my life in ways I cannot control.
this is why information whores want to know what I watch in the first place (in this example).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157450</id>
	<title>Re:OP, show some backbone</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1266346320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cancel your cable. War won.</p></div><p>Not only that, but you don't have to watch their shitty ads anymore! Winning wars you didn't know you were fighting!</p><p>Yay!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancel your cable .
War won.Not only that , but you do n't have to watch their shitty ads anymore !
Winning wars you did n't know you were fighting ! Yay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancel your cable.
War won.Not only that, but you don't have to watch their shitty ads anymore!
Winning wars you didn't know you were fighting!Yay!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158368</id>
	<title>Privacy to other humans or to machines?</title>
	<author>stupendou</author>
	<datestamp>1266349800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm as big a privacy advocate as you'll find. But my main concern has always been that I want my private life<br>to remain private to other humans, so that they could not exploit it for personal gain. Nowadays, there is so<br>much information on so many people that I don't expect to get singled out in this regard. If the details of<br>my private life are only available to and processed by machines, then it's not nearly as big a deal.</p><p>Problems occur when that information is available to humans. that is where I draw the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm as big a privacy advocate as you 'll find .
But my main concern has always been that I want my private lifeto remain private to other humans , so that they could not exploit it for personal gain .
Nowadays , there is somuch information on so many people that I do n't expect to get singled out in this regard .
If the details ofmy private life are only available to and processed by machines , then it 's not nearly as big a deal.Problems occur when that information is available to humans .
that is where I draw the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm as big a privacy advocate as you'll find.
But my main concern has always been that I want my private lifeto remain private to other humans, so that they could not exploit it for personal gain.
Nowadays, there is somuch information on so many people that I don't expect to get singled out in this regard.
If the details ofmy private life are only available to and processed by machines, then it's not nearly as big a deal.Problems occur when that information is available to humans.
that is where I draw the line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156942</id>
	<title>Give them a mixed bag of garbage.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making sure their data is a mixed bag of garbage is a better plan then hiding from them and trying to prevent your data from being collected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making sure their data is a mixed bag of garbage is a better plan then hiding from them and trying to prevent your data from being collected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making sure their data is a mixed bag of garbage is a better plan then hiding from them and trying to prevent your data from being collected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158420</id>
	<title>Re:Don't borrow money</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1266349980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So I think that much of the targeted information is coming via credit-reporting agencies.</p><p>Obviously, you also do not respond to charities received in the mail.  My family used to do this, occasionally, and my parents are still inundated, even though they stopped responding after my father retired, over a decade ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So I think that much of the targeted information is coming via credit-reporting agencies.Obviously , you also do not respond to charities received in the mail .
My family used to do this , occasionally , and my parents are still inundated , even though they stopped responding after my father retired , over a decade ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So I think that much of the targeted information is coming via credit-reporting agencies.Obviously, you also do not respond to charities received in the mail.
My family used to do this, occasionally, and my parents are still inundated, even though they stopped responding after my father retired, over a decade ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156338</id>
	<title>RE: Did We Lose the Privacy War?</title>
	<author>phil42</author>
	<datestamp>1266342540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, we did</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , we did</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, we did</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160822</id>
	<title>A time for choosing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266317580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threats the internet  by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the facebook curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace&mdash;and you can have it in the next second&mdash;surrender.</p><p>Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face&mdash;that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand&mdash;the ultimatum. And what then&mdash;when Zuckerberg has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "pics at any price" or "better Reddit than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "die than not have pictures of kittens available 24-7." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can not buy our security , our freedom from the threats the internet by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the facebook curtain , " Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins , we 're willing to make a deal with your slave masters .
" Alexander Hamilton said , " A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master , and deserves one .
" Now let 's set the record straight .
There 's no argument over the choice between peace and war , but there 's only one guaranteed way you can have peace    and you can have it in the next second    surrender.Admittedly , there 's a risk in any course we follow other than this , but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement , and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face    that their policy of accommodation is appeasement , and it gives no choice between peace and war , only between fight or surrender .
If we continue to accommodate , continue to back and retreat , eventually we have to face the final demand    the ultimatum .
And what then    when Zuckerberg has told his people he knows what our answer will be ?
He has told them that we 're retreating under the pressure , and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum , our surrender will be voluntary , because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually , morally , and economically .
He believes this because from our side he 's heard voices pleading for " pics at any price " or " better Reddit than dead , " or as one commentator put it , he 'd rather " die than not have pictures of kittens available 24-7 .
" And therein lies the road to war , because those voices do n't speak for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threats the internet  by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the facebook curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters.
" Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.
" Now let's set the record straight.
There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender.
If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum.
And what then—when Zuckerberg has told his people he knows what our answer will be?
He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically.
He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "pics at any price" or "better Reddit than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "die than not have pictures of kittens available 24-7.
" And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156588</id>
	<title>It's no longer in your hands</title>
	<author>bcboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266343500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you interact with anyone who does not value privacy then your efforts are wasted. They can also expose your data. This is how facebook is able to know who your friends are even if you've never had a facebook account, or given them a single piece of data: they can mine the contact lists of people who have willingly exposed theirs. If you appear on any of them, facebook can start building a profile of you.</p><p>Unless you're living without human contact, you will be profiled in a database somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you interact with anyone who does not value privacy then your efforts are wasted .
They can also expose your data .
This is how facebook is able to know who your friends are even if you 've never had a facebook account , or given them a single piece of data : they can mine the contact lists of people who have willingly exposed theirs .
If you appear on any of them , facebook can start building a profile of you.Unless you 're living without human contact , you will be profiled in a database somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you interact with anyone who does not value privacy then your efforts are wasted.
They can also expose your data.
This is how facebook is able to know who your friends are even if you've never had a facebook account, or given them a single piece of data: they can mine the contact lists of people who have willingly exposed theirs.
If you appear on any of them, facebook can start building a profile of you.Unless you're living without human contact, you will be profiled in a database somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156966</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1266344700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you are member #31156320. Keep it straight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you are member # 31156320 .
Keep it straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you are member #31156320.
Keep it straight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157736</id>
	<title>Re:Stop stressing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266347400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is no different, really, than living in a small town."</p><p>This is the heart of the matter.</p><p>Anything you do with others isn't private. These others may agree not to "gossip" (thus enlarging your privacy), but that is entirely up to them. So just as in any small town, or in any group of friends, anything is as private as the biggest gossip will let it be. That is why you watch your step when near that notorious gossip.</p><p>Also note, that anything done in public is,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... public. That includes your dealings with companies, your steps on the internet, and anything else that transmits data about you outside your house. Yes, even that noisy sex or spousal argument that the neighbors heard (ok, bad examples...).</p><p>As the parent said: This is no different, really, than living in a small town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is no different , really , than living in a small town .
" This is the heart of the matter.Anything you do with others is n't private .
These others may agree not to " gossip " ( thus enlarging your privacy ) , but that is entirely up to them .
So just as in any small town , or in any group of friends , anything is as private as the biggest gossip will let it be .
That is why you watch your step when near that notorious gossip.Also note , that anything done in public is , ... public. That includes your dealings with companies , your steps on the internet , and anything else that transmits data about you outside your house .
Yes , even that noisy sex or spousal argument that the neighbors heard ( ok , bad examples... ) .As the parent said : This is no different , really , than living in a small town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is no different, really, than living in a small town.
"This is the heart of the matter.Anything you do with others isn't private.
These others may agree not to "gossip" (thus enlarging your privacy), but that is entirely up to them.
So just as in any small town, or in any group of friends, anything is as private as the biggest gossip will let it be.
That is why you watch your step when near that notorious gossip.Also note, that anything done in public is, ... public. That includes your dealings with companies, your steps on the internet, and anything else that transmits data about you outside your house.
Yes, even that noisy sex or spousal argument that the neighbors heard (ok, bad examples...).As the parent said: This is no different, really, than living in a small town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156952</id>
	<title>Re:Good privacy is really difficult</title>
	<author>Paradigm\_Complex</author>
	<datestamp>1266344700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't Google that determined your location by getting around the VPN, it was your browser before anything went over the VPN.  You can be behind seven proxies, if you tell the guy at the other end where you are the proxies aren't going to automatically censor you.  In this instance, it was all you that gave up the information, not some crazy complicated scheme to steal your personal information.  Good privacy isn't \_that\_ hard, just don't go around telling people where you are d:</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't Google that determined your location by getting around the VPN , it was your browser before anything went over the VPN .
You can be behind seven proxies , if you tell the guy at the other end where you are the proxies are n't going to automatically censor you .
In this instance , it was all you that gave up the information , not some crazy complicated scheme to steal your personal information .
Good privacy is n't \ _that \ _ hard , just do n't go around telling people where you are d :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't Google that determined your location by getting around the VPN, it was your browser before anything went over the VPN.
You can be behind seven proxies, if you tell the guy at the other end where you are the proxies aren't going to automatically censor you.
In this instance, it was all you that gave up the information, not some crazy complicated scheme to steal your personal information.
Good privacy isn't \_that\_ hard, just don't go around telling people where you are d:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159410</id>
	<title>Money out of your wallet needn't be a bad thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266311220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet.</p></div><p>I don't know about you, but I only buy something if its probable value to me is greater than its price. If they're getting more money out of my wallet, that probably means I'm getting more value. There's nothing wrong with that.</p><p>What's so evil about targeted advertising? It's win-win if you make rational decisions. Yeah, it sucks for someone who buys anything that's shiny, but what else is new?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet.I do n't know about you , but I only buy something if its probable value to me is greater than its price .
If they 're getting more money out of my wallet , that probably means I 'm getting more value .
There 's nothing wrong with that.What 's so evil about targeted advertising ?
It 's win-win if you make rational decisions .
Yeah , it sucks for someone who buys anything that 's shiny , but what else is new ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet.I don't know about you, but I only buy something if its probable value to me is greater than its price.
If they're getting more money out of my wallet, that probably means I'm getting more value.
There's nothing wrong with that.What's so evil about targeted advertising?
It's win-win if you make rational decisions.
Yeah, it sucks for someone who buys anything that's shiny, but what else is new?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160360</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1266315360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[stands up] No, I am member #5534289.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ stands up ] No , I am member # 5534289. : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[stands up] No, I am member #5534289. :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161628</id>
	<title>Re:Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1266321300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;   And nothing stops anyone from selling your health records to the nazi's, the mafia, the street gang, the Republicans.</p><p>Umm, it's most definitely illegal to violate the privacy a health record in the United States.   There's a whole volume of law on this called HIPAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And nothing stops anyone from selling your health records to the nazi 's , the mafia , the street gang , the Republicans.Umm , it 's most definitely illegal to violate the privacy a health record in the United States .
There 's a whole volume of law on this called HIPAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;   And nothing stops anyone from selling your health records to the nazi's, the mafia, the street gang, the Republicans.Umm, it's most definitely illegal to violate the privacy a health record in the United States.
There's a whole volume of law on this called HIPAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165960</id>
	<title>Re:Hobby</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266350280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. It is true that we can't reliably predict how people might use data they mine from our contributions to the online community, but even without resorting to any sort of fatuous "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument, you have two options...</p><p>1. Keep using electronic networks to some degree, with or without loads of extra security work. All the benefits of modern life with some pitfalls which are mostly minor for most people.</p><p>2. Go all Unabomber in your lifestyle (sans the actual bombing, of course) and not use any sort of traceable transactions or communications network. Only use old, unmarked bills to buy stuff and live "off-grid."</p><p>Freedom doesn't mean freedom from prying activities. Freedom comes at the price of eternal vigilance, watching for abuse of the exposure to data mining. Some of the lengths people go to to avoid being tracked are not dissimilar to the symptoms of agoraphobia and other social dysfunctions. It can be a sort of digital fear of being in public. Be alert, not alarmed, as one country's security media campaign suggested<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
It is true that we ca n't reliably predict how people might use data they mine from our contributions to the online community , but even without resorting to any sort of fatuous " nothing to hide , nothing to fear " argument , you have two options...1 .
Keep using electronic networks to some degree , with or without loads of extra security work .
All the benefits of modern life with some pitfalls which are mostly minor for most people.2 .
Go all Unabomber in your lifestyle ( sans the actual bombing , of course ) and not use any sort of traceable transactions or communications network .
Only use old , unmarked bills to buy stuff and live " off-grid .
" Freedom does n't mean freedom from prying activities .
Freedom comes at the price of eternal vigilance , watching for abuse of the exposure to data mining .
Some of the lengths people go to to avoid being tracked are not dissimilar to the symptoms of agoraphobia and other social dysfunctions .
It can be a sort of digital fear of being in public .
Be alert , not alarmed , as one country 's security media campaign suggested : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
It is true that we can't reliably predict how people might use data they mine from our contributions to the online community, but even without resorting to any sort of fatuous "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument, you have two options...1.
Keep using electronic networks to some degree, with or without loads of extra security work.
All the benefits of modern life with some pitfalls which are mostly minor for most people.2.
Go all Unabomber in your lifestyle (sans the actual bombing, of course) and not use any sort of traceable transactions or communications network.
Only use old, unmarked bills to buy stuff and live "off-grid.
"Freedom doesn't mean freedom from prying activities.
Freedom comes at the price of eternal vigilance, watching for abuse of the exposure to data mining.
Some of the lengths people go to to avoid being tracked are not dissimilar to the symptoms of agoraphobia and other social dysfunctions.
It can be a sort of digital fear of being in public.
Be alert, not alarmed, as one country's security media campaign suggested :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159208</id>
	<title>Privacy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266353280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy is dead, said by Anonymous a name known to everyone...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is dead , said by Anonymous a name known to everyone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is dead, said by Anonymous a name known to everyone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650</id>
	<title>The offensive part.</title>
	<author>Xzzy</author>
	<datestamp>1266343680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that bugs me about being endlessly monitored and categorized is that it's never used to make my life better. It's only ever done to help some random corporation improve their profits by some fraction of a percentage.</p><p>If being tracked watching a TV show for a full season resulted in them going "hey, thanks for being a loyal viewer, have this X as a token of our appreciation", I wouldn't complain so much. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a material bonus, in this day and age they could simply grant access to some kind of insider info website. The possibilities are only limited by imagination.</p><p>But no. Everything I do gets dumped into a database and sold to the highest bidder. It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet. Or if the government is involved, measure my odds of being a terrorist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that bugs me about being endlessly monitored and categorized is that it 's never used to make my life better .
It 's only ever done to help some random corporation improve their profits by some fraction of a percentage.If being tracked watching a TV show for a full season resulted in them going " hey , thanks for being a loyal viewer , have this X as a token of our appreciation " , I would n't complain so much .
It would n't necessarily have to be a material bonus , in this day and age they could simply grant access to some kind of insider info website .
The possibilities are only limited by imagination.But no .
Everything I do gets dumped into a database and sold to the highest bidder .
It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet .
Or if the government is involved , measure my odds of being a terrorist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that bugs me about being endlessly monitored and categorized is that it's never used to make my life better.
It's only ever done to help some random corporation improve their profits by some fraction of a percentage.If being tracked watching a TV show for a full season resulted in them going "hey, thanks for being a loyal viewer, have this X as a token of our appreciation", I wouldn't complain so much.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be a material bonus, in this day and age they could simply grant access to some kind of insider info website.
The possibilities are only limited by imagination.But no.
Everything I do gets dumped into a database and sold to the highest bidder.
It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet.
Or if the government is involved, measure my odds of being a terrorist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320</id>
	<title>You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1266342480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I <b>am</b> member  #5534289 you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am member # 5534289 you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am member  #5534289 you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157064</id>
	<title>Re:Err no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just the government and the media. People are just too eager to give up their privacy in exchange for some slight convenience.</p><p>I mean, you can protest all you want about a government that represents you violating your privacy, but people seem terribly eager to give up their privacy to profit-driven companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and big supermarket chains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just the government and the media .
People are just too eager to give up their privacy in exchange for some slight convenience.I mean , you can protest all you want about a government that represents you violating your privacy , but people seem terribly eager to give up their privacy to profit-driven companies like Google , Facebook , Amazon and big supermarket chains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just the government and the media.
People are just too eager to give up their privacy in exchange for some slight convenience.I mean, you can protest all you want about a government that represents you violating your privacy, but people seem terribly eager to give up their privacy to profit-driven companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and big supermarket chains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161048</id>
	<title>Have you tried....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266318660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fake glasses with the nose and bushy eyebrows yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fake glasses with the nose and bushy eyebrows yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fake glasses with the nose and bushy eyebrows yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158870</id>
	<title>Re:Tracking your TV watching is good</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1266351780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before Tivo existed, every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV. Ever since I've had Tivo I always record all the shows I like and I'm happy that Tivo is collecting that information. Sometimes I even record and play back reruns (with the TV off) to positively affect the data for the shows I like.</p></div><p>You are assuming that your profile is valuable to advertisers. Who knows, you might be *harming* the chances of your favorite show getting renewed, because they look up your Tivo profile and say, "Nah, we already catch enough of those eyeballs with Sports Center. We're only interested in paying for a show that reaches urban 25-35 Ivy League grads."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before Tivo existed , every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV .
Ever since I 've had Tivo I always record all the shows I like and I 'm happy that Tivo is collecting that information .
Sometimes I even record and play back reruns ( with the TV off ) to positively affect the data for the shows I like.You are assuming that your profile is valuable to advertisers .
Who knows , you might be * harming * the chances of your favorite show getting renewed , because they look up your Tivo profile and say , " Nah , we already catch enough of those eyeballs with Sports Center .
We 're only interested in paying for a show that reaches urban 25-35 Ivy League grads .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before Tivo existed, every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV.
Ever since I've had Tivo I always record all the shows I like and I'm happy that Tivo is collecting that information.
Sometimes I even record and play back reruns (with the TV off) to positively affect the data for the shows I like.You are assuming that your profile is valuable to advertisers.
Who knows, you might be *harming* the chances of your favorite show getting renewed, because they look up your Tivo profile and say, "Nah, we already catch enough of those eyeballs with Sports Center.
We're only interested in paying for a show that reaches urban 25-35 Ivy League grads.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31167942</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1265034300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a variation of this to determine who is selling my data on.</p><p>When I sign up for something I change the address or name subtly. A slight mis-spelling here, an A or B on the end of the house number there. gMail is also quite handy because you can put extra periods (.) in your email address and it will still come to you.</p><p>Then when I get spammed or someone already knows my details when I never gave them over to them I know who if profiting off my personal info.</p><p>Time to start sending out invoices I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a variation of this to determine who is selling my data on.When I sign up for something I change the address or name subtly .
A slight mis-spelling here , an A or B on the end of the house number there .
gMail is also quite handy because you can put extra periods ( .
) in your email address and it will still come to you.Then when I get spammed or someone already knows my details when I never gave them over to them I know who if profiting off my personal info.Time to start sending out invoices I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a variation of this to determine who is selling my data on.When I sign up for something I change the address or name subtly.
A slight mis-spelling here, an A or B on the end of the house number there.
gMail is also quite handy because you can put extra periods (.
) in your email address and it will still come to you.Then when I get spammed or someone already knows my details when I never gave them over to them I know who if profiting off my personal info.Time to start sending out invoices I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156492</id>
	<title>No SELECT is necessary.</title>
	<author>t33jster</author>
	<datestamp>1266343140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe.</p></div><p>Actually, we've written a stored procedure to determine whether or not you're interesting.<br>
<br>
EXECUTE IS\_INTERESTING(5534289); <br>
<br>
Very interesting indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm not that interesting to anyone , but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe.Actually , we 've written a stored procedure to determine whether or not you 're interesting .
EXECUTE IS \ _INTERESTING ( 5534289 ) ; Very interesting indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe.Actually, we've written a stored procedure to determine whether or not you're interesting.
EXECUTE IS\_INTERESTING(5534289); 

Very interesting indeed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156330</id>
	<title>Not 5534289</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1266342540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're 823684</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're 823684</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're 823684</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157074</id>
	<title>Privacy was never alive...</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1266345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets think back in the 1800's.</p><p>You went to the store the store keeper knew who you are and what you bought. Then they would gossip about you to the rest of the neighbors.  If you tried to be a tight lip and more independent the more interested people would be in getting information about you.  The more open you were the better others will treat you the more privet they will mistrust you more and not get any favors.</p><p>So except for a select/join you will need to go to the person who did that, and they will say joe smith.</p><p>We never had true privacy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets think back in the 1800 's.You went to the store the store keeper knew who you are and what you bought .
Then they would gossip about you to the rest of the neighbors .
If you tried to be a tight lip and more independent the more interested people would be in getting information about you .
The more open you were the better others will treat you the more privet they will mistrust you more and not get any favors.So except for a select/join you will need to go to the person who did that , and they will say joe smith.We never had true privacy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets think back in the 1800's.You went to the store the store keeper knew who you are and what you bought.
Then they would gossip about you to the rest of the neighbors.
If you tried to be a tight lip and more independent the more interested people would be in getting information about you.
The more open you were the better others will treat you the more privet they will mistrust you more and not get any favors.So except for a select/join you will need to go to the person who did that, and they will say joe smith.We never had true privacy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157448</id>
	<title>Oblig</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1266346320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are worried about being nothing but a select statement there are always alternatives. <a href="http://xkcd.com/327/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/327/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are worried about being nothing but a select statement there are always alternatives .
http : //xkcd.com/327/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are worried about being nothing but a select statement there are always alternatives.
http://xkcd.com/327/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163654</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1266333600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The submitter has sold privacy for convenience.</p></div><p>"But honey, the picture window in the living room has such a lovely view!"</p><p>Just as you can appreciate the view from the inside, a peeping tom can appreciate it from the outside. And let's not forget about it being a <a href="http://xkcd.com/87/" title="xkcd.com">velociraptor entry point</a> [xkcd.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The submitter has sold privacy for convenience .
" But honey , the picture window in the living room has such a lovely view !
" Just as you can appreciate the view from the inside , a peeping tom can appreciate it from the outside .
And let 's not forget about it being a velociraptor entry point [ xkcd.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The submitter has sold privacy for convenience.
"But honey, the picture window in the living room has such a lovely view!
"Just as you can appreciate the view from the inside, a peeping tom can appreciate it from the outside.
And let's not forget about it being a velociraptor entry point [xkcd.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160470</id>
	<title>Lie at every opportunity</title>
	<author>CyberPhart</author>
	<datestamp>1266315960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be sure to lie whenever you can get away with it. When subscribing to magazines, spell your first name slightly differently on every subscription form. Every time someone wants household income, check a different level. If your address or phone number isn't important to what your filling out, change a couple of numbers.

Of course, don't be an idiot and screw up something that might void a warranty or get you into legal trouble, but if some nosey organization is just asking for information, give 'em some. Just make it the wrong information.

Depending on the situation, your lies may be little ones or totally outrageous.

Data mining is here to stay, but if enough people start lying to information gatherers, the data mined will be worthless.

Oh yeah, the election day exit polls? Always tell 'em you voted for the other candidate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be sure to lie whenever you can get away with it .
When subscribing to magazines , spell your first name slightly differently on every subscription form .
Every time someone wants household income , check a different level .
If your address or phone number is n't important to what your filling out , change a couple of numbers .
Of course , do n't be an idiot and screw up something that might void a warranty or get you into legal trouble , but if some nosey organization is just asking for information , give 'em some .
Just make it the wrong information .
Depending on the situation , your lies may be little ones or totally outrageous .
Data mining is here to stay , but if enough people start lying to information gatherers , the data mined will be worthless .
Oh yeah , the election day exit polls ?
Always tell 'em you voted for the other candidate : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be sure to lie whenever you can get away with it.
When subscribing to magazines, spell your first name slightly differently on every subscription form.
Every time someone wants household income, check a different level.
If your address or phone number isn't important to what your filling out, change a couple of numbers.
Of course, don't be an idiot and screw up something that might void a warranty or get you into legal trouble, but if some nosey organization is just asking for information, give 'em some.
Just make it the wrong information.
Depending on the situation, your lies may be little ones or totally outrageous.
Data mining is here to stay, but if enough people start lying to information gatherers, the data mined will be worthless.
Oh yeah, the election day exit polls?
Always tell 'em you voted for the other candidate :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162524</id>
	<title>Re:Try to skew their stats, if you must...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266325980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that those bastards also track which credit cards were used in conjunction with the "loyalty" card.</p><p>States such as California forbid stores from requiring personally-identifiable information for a discount card when the chain is otherwise open to the public, but store clerks still tell you that you HAVE TO fill in all the fields and won't give it to you otherwise, and then they start arguing that your name and address isn't REALLY personally identifiable cause other people may live there as well (WTF).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When signing-up for a store "discount card", in addition to the address-trick above (you can use a bogus name too), be sure to either share the same card (the store will give you multiple ones with the same number) with as many relatives/friends as you can. First you (well, the one of you, who gets to the store on the lucky day) will get the bonus-points discounts faster, and second, the stats will be sufficiently skewed by the multiple people and their preferences. This is somewhat bad for the store, so I, instead, just exchange the cards with others. The store still knows, that the <em>same</em> person bought A and B, they just don't know, who that person really was.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that those bastards also track which credit cards were used in conjunction with the " loyalty " card.States such as California forbid stores from requiring personally-identifiable information for a discount card when the chain is otherwise open to the public , but store clerks still tell you that you HAVE TO fill in all the fields and wo n't give it to you otherwise , and then they start arguing that your name and address is n't REALLY personally identifiable cause other people may live there as well ( WTF ) .When signing-up for a store " discount card " , in addition to the address-trick above ( you can use a bogus name too ) , be sure to either share the same card ( the store will give you multiple ones with the same number ) with as many relatives/friends as you can .
First you ( well , the one of you , who gets to the store on the lucky day ) will get the bonus-points discounts faster , and second , the stats will be sufficiently skewed by the multiple people and their preferences .
This is somewhat bad for the store , so I , instead , just exchange the cards with others .
The store still knows , that the same person bought A and B , they just do n't know , who that person really was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that those bastards also track which credit cards were used in conjunction with the "loyalty" card.States such as California forbid stores from requiring personally-identifiable information for a discount card when the chain is otherwise open to the public, but store clerks still tell you that you HAVE TO fill in all the fields and won't give it to you otherwise, and then they start arguing that your name and address isn't REALLY personally identifiable cause other people may live there as well (WTF).When signing-up for a store "discount card", in addition to the address-trick above (you can use a bogus name too), be sure to either share the same card (the store will give you multiple ones with the same number) with as many relatives/friends as you can.
First you (well, the one of you, who gets to the store on the lucky day) will get the bonus-points discounts faster, and second, the stats will be sufficiently skewed by the multiple people and their preferences.
This is somewhat bad for the store, so I, instead, just exchange the cards with others.
The store still knows, that the same person bought A and B, they just don't know, who that person really was.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31194420</id>
	<title>Re:You aren't fighting properly</title>
	<author>Woeful Countenance</author>
	<datestamp>1266504780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used? What portion of their resources are used?  Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.  You are the one CHOOSING to use THEIR resources.</p></div><p>There are two problems with this: first, there's a distinction between monitoring resource usage and monitoring content. For Google to note that my IP address is issuing an unusually high number of requests is resource monitoring; for Google to keep a list of all queries it received from my IP address is content monitoring.

Second, in the case of network bandwidth, I PAID for it, so it's mine, no one else's. It's valid for my provider to monitor the quantity of data I send and receive; it's not valid for them to keep track of my DNS queries or my connections.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used ?
What portion of their resources are used ?
Did you catch that use of the word THEIR , these are n't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them , so be it .
You are the one CHOOSING to use THEIR resources.There are two problems with this : first , there 's a distinction between monitoring resource usage and monitoring content .
For Google to note that my IP address is issuing an unusually high number of requests is resource monitoring ; for Google to keep a list of all queries it received from my IP address is content monitoring .
Second , in the case of network bandwidth , I PAID for it , so it 's mine , no one else 's .
It 's valid for my provider to monitor the quantity of data I send and receive ; it 's not valid for them to keep track of my DNS queries or my connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used?
What portion of their resources are used?
Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.
You are the one CHOOSING to use THEIR resources.There are two problems with this: first, there's a distinction between monitoring resource usage and monitoring content.
For Google to note that my IP address is issuing an unusually high number of requests is resource monitoring; for Google to keep a list of all queries it received from my IP address is content monitoring.
Second, in the case of network bandwidth, I PAID for it, so it's mine, no one else's.
It's valid for my provider to monitor the quantity of data I send and receive; it's not valid for them to keep track of my DNS queries or my connections.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156732</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>kaoshin</author>
	<datestamp>1266343980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You have to connect to someone else's machine, hook up to someone else's fiber, talk to someone who you can't immediately trust, and you have to do it in the open."</p><p>That is to say, you didn't zombie someone elses machine, hijack someone elses connection, impersonate another individual or conduct your activities through covert channels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You have to connect to someone else 's machine , hook up to someone else 's fiber , talk to someone who you ca n't immediately trust , and you have to do it in the open .
" That is to say , you did n't zombie someone elses machine , hijack someone elses connection , impersonate another individual or conduct your activities through covert channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You have to connect to someone else's machine, hook up to someone else's fiber, talk to someone who you can't immediately trust, and you have to do it in the open.
"That is to say, you didn't zombie someone elses machine, hijack someone elses connection, impersonate another individual or conduct your activities through covert channels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158578</id>
	<title>Re:The offensive part.</title>
	<author>pigwiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1266350580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet"</p><p>If they succeed then didn't they make your life better?  It's not a forced transaction.  Presumably they get that money from you because they have something in exchange that you value more than the money (or the effort you put into getting it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet " If they succeed then did n't they make your life better ?
It 's not a forced transaction .
Presumably they get that money from you because they have something in exchange that you value more than the money ( or the effort you put into getting it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It serves no purpose but to try and get more money out of my wallet"If they succeed then didn't they make your life better?
It's not a forced transaction.
Presumably they get that money from you because they have something in exchange that you value more than the money (or the effort you put into getting it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162032</id>
	<title>Re:Tracking your TV watching is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before Tivo existed, every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV.</p></div><p>Why do you seem to think that they would choose YOUR preferences over the masses, and just because you would make yours more easily available?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before Tivo existed , every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV.Why do you seem to think that they would choose YOUR preferences over the masses , and just because you would make yours more easily available ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before Tivo existed, every time one of the shows I liked was canceled I wished that the TV network was tracking MY viewing habits instead of the unwashed masses who appear to like reality TV.Why do you seem to think that they would choose YOUR preferences over the masses, and just because you would make yours more easily available?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158936</id>
	<title>Privacy or capability?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266352080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally what scares most is capability to abuse privacy and ability to use peoples own gizmos against them regardless of which if any actual violations occur in the real world.  The only way to win is to make or force core infustructure design choices which lack the capacity to circumvent privacy.</p><p>Technology can also help enforce privacy just as much as it can help to take it away.</p><p>I remember reading about data transmitted by the tivo years ago back when most were connected via modem.. it was really pretty sick.. the syslog data sent to their servers included event information on every key press of the remote.</p><p>Pound for pound the modern cell phone is the most egregious offender in terms of capability.  The radio layer of all cell phones (Including your favorite linux fanboy smart phones) is totally propritary - the majority of handsets allow the radio images to be flashed over the air by push from the provider.  This means even if your phone has no back doors to spy on you via open mic or enabling the camera without your knowledge an update can be sent without your approval to enable all of that and more.  Obviously the major problem with cell phones is the ability to track your every move..again for me its not about what is being done in terms of recording activities its what *CAN* be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally what scares most is capability to abuse privacy and ability to use peoples own gizmos against them regardless of which if any actual violations occur in the real world .
The only way to win is to make or force core infustructure design choices which lack the capacity to circumvent privacy.Technology can also help enforce privacy just as much as it can help to take it away.I remember reading about data transmitted by the tivo years ago back when most were connected via modem.. it was really pretty sick.. the syslog data sent to their servers included event information on every key press of the remote.Pound for pound the modern cell phone is the most egregious offender in terms of capability .
The radio layer of all cell phones ( Including your favorite linux fanboy smart phones ) is totally propritary - the majority of handsets allow the radio images to be flashed over the air by push from the provider .
This means even if your phone has no back doors to spy on you via open mic or enabling the camera without your knowledge an update can be sent without your approval to enable all of that and more .
Obviously the major problem with cell phones is the ability to track your every move..again for me its not about what is being done in terms of recording activities its what * CAN * be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally what scares most is capability to abuse privacy and ability to use peoples own gizmos against them regardless of which if any actual violations occur in the real world.
The only way to win is to make or force core infustructure design choices which lack the capacity to circumvent privacy.Technology can also help enforce privacy just as much as it can help to take it away.I remember reading about data transmitted by the tivo years ago back when most were connected via modem.. it was really pretty sick.. the syslog data sent to their servers included event information on every key press of the remote.Pound for pound the modern cell phone is the most egregious offender in terms of capability.
The radio layer of all cell phones (Including your favorite linux fanboy smart phones) is totally propritary - the majority of handsets allow the radio images to be flashed over the air by push from the provider.
This means even if your phone has no back doors to spy on you via open mic or enabling the camera without your knowledge an update can be sent without your approval to enable all of that and more.
Obviously the major problem with cell phones is the ability to track your every move..again for me its not about what is being done in terms of recording activities its what *CAN* be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160490</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1266316020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sock puppet accounts are great except when you start getting tagged in pictures for your work sock puppet and the last bachelor party you went to on your private sock puppet and they get linked through facial recognition and your boss sees pictures of you sniffing blow from a hookers cleavage.</p><p>Luckily i have a cool boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sock puppet accounts are great except when you start getting tagged in pictures for your work sock puppet and the last bachelor party you went to on your private sock puppet and they get linked through facial recognition and your boss sees pictures of you sniffing blow from a hookers cleavage.Luckily i have a cool boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sock puppet accounts are great except when you start getting tagged in pictures for your work sock puppet and the last bachelor party you went to on your private sock puppet and they get linked through facial recognition and your boss sees pictures of you sniffing blow from a hookers cleavage.Luckily i have a cool boss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157254</id>
	<title>A Corporate Solution</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1266345660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> When offering up "private" information, behave like your average corporate CEO and lie like a carpet. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When offering up " private " information , behave like your average corporate CEO and lie like a carpet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When offering up "private" information, behave like your average corporate CEO and lie like a carpet. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156832</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1266344280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and you have to do it in the open.</p></div><p>So use a false or constructed identity. This can be done to varying levels of quality and sophistication depending upon how much time and money you are willing to put into it. Will this prevent a determined adversary from penetrating your disguise? No, but it will make it too expensive for most commercial entities to consider and unless they have reason to doubt your credentials then it is likely that they will never see past the deception. This is the sort of basic tradecraft that intelligence agencies have been using for decades (i.e. unofficial cover). Learn the skills and techniques of the intelligence agency if you really want to protect your privacy; the search for good educational resources is left as an exercise for the reader.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and you have to do it in the open.So use a false or constructed identity .
This can be done to varying levels of quality and sophistication depending upon how much time and money you are willing to put into it .
Will this prevent a determined adversary from penetrating your disguise ?
No , but it will make it too expensive for most commercial entities to consider and unless they have reason to doubt your credentials then it is likely that they will never see past the deception .
This is the sort of basic tradecraft that intelligence agencies have been using for decades ( i.e .
unofficial cover ) .
Learn the skills and techniques of the intelligence agency if you really want to protect your privacy ; the search for good educational resources is left as an exercise for the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you have to do it in the open.So use a false or constructed identity.
This can be done to varying levels of quality and sophistication depending upon how much time and money you are willing to put into it.
Will this prevent a determined adversary from penetrating your disguise?
No, but it will make it too expensive for most commercial entities to consider and unless they have reason to doubt your credentials then it is likely that they will never see past the deception.
This is the sort of basic tradecraft that intelligence agencies have been using for decades (i.e.
unofficial cover).
Learn the skills and techniques of the intelligence agency if you really want to protect your privacy; the search for good educational resources is left as an exercise for the reader.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160436</id>
	<title>An important thing about slashdot...</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1266315780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot is not your therapist. If it were, you'd probably have more problems after you left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is not your therapist .
If it were , you 'd probably have more problems after you left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is not your therapist.
If it were, you'd probably have more problems after you left.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156992</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>Stooshie</author>
	<datestamp>1266344880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm number 6, no, number 1...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm number 6 , no , number 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm number 6, no, number 1...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157944</id>
	<title>It's based on a fallacy</title>
	<author>ultracosm</author>
	<datestamp>1266348240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fallacy is that you must have exactly one identity online, linked to your real identity offline.</p><p>In fact, there are relatively few transactions on the web (or anywhere else) where I am a customer where the vendor needs to be able to link to my real world identity. She may need to learn that a payment has been authorized, or that I am the person who submitted a blog post so I can edit it; but she does not need to know my social security number or mother's maiden name.</p><p>Once in a while you need to establish a one-to-one identity with a real person, such as to prevent money laundering or in an election. But for most of us those are the exception, not the rule.</p><p>As long as the marketing folks get us (and our government/bank/ISP) to believe we need to establish that one-to-one identity every single time we participate in any sort of interaction with anyone at all, yes, we have lost. And all in the name of them being able to call me at dinner time to try to sell me something, or send me a bunch of "credit card pre-approved" mails, or whatever. Or for some overly-paternalistic government bureaucrat wanting to make sure I get caught if I say a dirty word or look at a dirty picture online.</p><p>Please folks (even you folks in Germany!) please resist the temptation to think that one-to-one identity is the only way to go. It's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fallacy is that you must have exactly one identity online , linked to your real identity offline.In fact , there are relatively few transactions on the web ( or anywhere else ) where I am a customer where the vendor needs to be able to link to my real world identity .
She may need to learn that a payment has been authorized , or that I am the person who submitted a blog post so I can edit it ; but she does not need to know my social security number or mother 's maiden name.Once in a while you need to establish a one-to-one identity with a real person , such as to prevent money laundering or in an election .
But for most of us those are the exception , not the rule.As long as the marketing folks get us ( and our government/bank/ISP ) to believe we need to establish that one-to-one identity every single time we participate in any sort of interaction with anyone at all , yes , we have lost .
And all in the name of them being able to call me at dinner time to try to sell me something , or send me a bunch of " credit card pre-approved " mails , or whatever .
Or for some overly-paternalistic government bureaucrat wanting to make sure I get caught if I say a dirty word or look at a dirty picture online.Please folks ( even you folks in Germany !
) please resist the temptation to think that one-to-one identity is the only way to go .
It 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fallacy is that you must have exactly one identity online, linked to your real identity offline.In fact, there are relatively few transactions on the web (or anywhere else) where I am a customer where the vendor needs to be able to link to my real world identity.
She may need to learn that a payment has been authorized, or that I am the person who submitted a blog post so I can edit it; but she does not need to know my social security number or mother's maiden name.Once in a while you need to establish a one-to-one identity with a real person, such as to prevent money laundering or in an election.
But for most of us those are the exception, not the rule.As long as the marketing folks get us (and our government/bank/ISP) to believe we need to establish that one-to-one identity every single time we participate in any sort of interaction with anyone at all, yes, we have lost.
And all in the name of them being able to call me at dinner time to try to sell me something, or send me a bunch of "credit card pre-approved" mails, or whatever.
Or for some overly-paternalistic government bureaucrat wanting to make sure I get caught if I say a dirty word or look at a dirty picture online.Please folks (even you folks in Germany!
) please resist the temptation to think that one-to-one identity is the only way to go.
It's not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156926</id>
	<title>Re:Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1266344640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great post, as a rant. However, what I think it really means is:</p><p>You are the only person who can effectively protect your own privacy. If you create permanent, or even transient, records of what you do by using conveniences such as credit cards, telephones, the Internet, or a diary, you are creating some potential (maybe likely) privacy exposures. Note that some activities have a much higher likelihood of exposing information you would rather not be publicly available.</p><p>Just as in other aspects of your life, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. If you exercise a modest amount of discretion, you can expect a modest amount of privacy. If you exercise no discretion, your life will be an open book for everyone.</p><p>Keep in mind that privacy isn't, and never was, absolute. Just think before you act. If you're using social media, think twice before you act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great post , as a rant .
However , what I think it really means is : You are the only person who can effectively protect your own privacy .
If you create permanent , or even transient , records of what you do by using conveniences such as credit cards , telephones , the Internet , or a diary , you are creating some potential ( maybe likely ) privacy exposures .
Note that some activities have a much higher likelihood of exposing information you would rather not be publicly available.Just as in other aspects of your life , what you get out of it depends on what you put into it .
If you exercise a modest amount of discretion , you can expect a modest amount of privacy .
If you exercise no discretion , your life will be an open book for everyone.Keep in mind that privacy is n't , and never was , absolute .
Just think before you act .
If you 're using social media , think twice before you act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great post, as a rant.
However, what I think it really means is:You are the only person who can effectively protect your own privacy.
If you create permanent, or even transient, records of what you do by using conveniences such as credit cards, telephones, the Internet, or a diary, you are creating some potential (maybe likely) privacy exposures.
Note that some activities have a much higher likelihood of exposing information you would rather not be publicly available.Just as in other aspects of your life, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.
If you exercise a modest amount of discretion, you can expect a modest amount of privacy.
If you exercise no discretion, your life will be an open book for everyone.Keep in mind that privacy isn't, and never was, absolute.
Just think before you act.
If you're using social media, think twice before you act.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158108</id>
	<title>Re:Tracking your TV watching is good</title>
	<author>drooling-dog</author>
	<datestamp>1266348840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, we're glad you brought that up, because frankly, we're troubled by your TV viewing habits. Most of it is harmless enough, but it has not escaped our attention that some of the programming you view has been statistically correlated with various un-american political beliefs and behaviors. While there is nothing illegal about these shows at the present time, I'm sure you can understand that your viewing of them does raise suspicions that could prove inopportune for you in the future. The company you work for might, for example, be exposed to certain risks by retaining you in its employ, and we would be remiss in our responsibilities if we failed to so alert it.</p><p>You need have nothing to fear, Citizen. By keeping your TV and web viewing well within the mainstream, you demonstrate to us and to your community that you can be trusted to live free among us in a free society. By also keeping it open to our inspection, you further show that you have nothing to hide. We thank you for your cooperation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , we 're glad you brought that up , because frankly , we 're troubled by your TV viewing habits .
Most of it is harmless enough , but it has not escaped our attention that some of the programming you view has been statistically correlated with various un-american political beliefs and behaviors .
While there is nothing illegal about these shows at the present time , I 'm sure you can understand that your viewing of them does raise suspicions that could prove inopportune for you in the future .
The company you work for might , for example , be exposed to certain risks by retaining you in its employ , and we would be remiss in our responsibilities if we failed to so alert it.You need have nothing to fear , Citizen .
By keeping your TV and web viewing well within the mainstream , you demonstrate to us and to your community that you can be trusted to live free among us in a free society .
By also keeping it open to our inspection , you further show that you have nothing to hide .
We thank you for your cooperation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, we're glad you brought that up, because frankly, we're troubled by your TV viewing habits.
Most of it is harmless enough, but it has not escaped our attention that some of the programming you view has been statistically correlated with various un-american political beliefs and behaviors.
While there is nothing illegal about these shows at the present time, I'm sure you can understand that your viewing of them does raise suspicions that could prove inopportune for you in the future.
The company you work for might, for example, be exposed to certain risks by retaining you in its employ, and we would be remiss in our responsibilities if we failed to so alert it.You need have nothing to fear, Citizen.
By keeping your TV and web viewing well within the mainstream, you demonstrate to us and to your community that you can be trusted to live free among us in a free society.
By also keeping it open to our inspection, you further show that you have nothing to hide.
We thank you for your cooperation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156938</id>
	<title>Re:Good privacy is really difficult</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1266344640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It offered me the option to use Firefox's location services. Curious, I let it, and despite being logged in via VPN, it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet. Still not exactly sure what it's doing to figure that out, but boy, that's scary...</i></p><p>I'm not sure why you are surprised.  Now, I haven't worked in IP networking for a while, but I don't see how a VPN would have any effect on what you did.</p><p>Lets say the termination point for your VPN is a server at your house.  IP A.B.C.D<br>You connect to the Hotel's wifi and get assigned IP W.X.Y.Z</p><p>You establish your VPN by whatever means you use.  You are now using your home server as a proxy with the data between you and your server encrypted.</p><p>Now for standard advertisements which try to 'local' advertise to you (Find deals in YourCity/ZIPCODE), they would likely return results which are based on the location of IP A.B.C.D, your home server.</p><p>But when you connected to google maps, and it ASKED you for your location information, this is what I expect happened:</p><p>Google: Hey, what is your location information?  (Sent to your home server ABCD, encrypted and relayed to you at IP WXYZ)<br>You:  Sure here it is.  (Your computer then filled in it's LOCAL, ie hotel, IP address and other information , encrypted at WXYZ, decrypted at ABCD, and sent to google)<br>Google: Based on the information you sent us, here is the public information regarding the location of that IP address, and we will stick it on a picture of a map for you.</p><p>Again, it's been a while since I dealt with VPNs, but there doesn't seem to be anything surprising going on here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It offered me the option to use Firefox 's location services .
Curious , I let it , and despite being logged in via VPN , it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet .
Still not exactly sure what it 's doing to figure that out , but boy , that 's scary...I 'm not sure why you are surprised .
Now , I have n't worked in IP networking for a while , but I do n't see how a VPN would have any effect on what you did.Lets say the termination point for your VPN is a server at your house .
IP A.B.C.DYou connect to the Hotel 's wifi and get assigned IP W.X.Y.ZYou establish your VPN by whatever means you use .
You are now using your home server as a proxy with the data between you and your server encrypted.Now for standard advertisements which try to 'local ' advertise to you ( Find deals in YourCity/ZIPCODE ) , they would likely return results which are based on the location of IP A.B.C.D , your home server.But when you connected to google maps , and it ASKED you for your location information , this is what I expect happened : Google : Hey , what is your location information ?
( Sent to your home server ABCD , encrypted and relayed to you at IP WXYZ ) You : Sure here it is .
( Your computer then filled in it 's LOCAL , ie hotel , IP address and other information , encrypted at WXYZ , decrypted at ABCD , and sent to google ) Google : Based on the information you sent us , here is the public information regarding the location of that IP address , and we will stick it on a picture of a map for you.Again , it 's been a while since I dealt with VPNs , but there does n't seem to be anything surprising going on here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It offered me the option to use Firefox's location services.
Curious, I let it, and despite being logged in via VPN, it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet.
Still not exactly sure what it's doing to figure that out, but boy, that's scary...I'm not sure why you are surprised.
Now, I haven't worked in IP networking for a while, but I don't see how a VPN would have any effect on what you did.Lets say the termination point for your VPN is a server at your house.
IP A.B.C.DYou connect to the Hotel's wifi and get assigned IP W.X.Y.ZYou establish your VPN by whatever means you use.
You are now using your home server as a proxy with the data between you and your server encrypted.Now for standard advertisements which try to 'local' advertise to you (Find deals in YourCity/ZIPCODE), they would likely return results which are based on the location of IP A.B.C.D, your home server.But when you connected to google maps, and it ASKED you for your location information, this is what I expect happened:Google: Hey, what is your location information?
(Sent to your home server ABCD, encrypted and relayed to you at IP WXYZ)You:  Sure here it is.
(Your computer then filled in it's LOCAL, ie hotel, IP address and other information , encrypted at WXYZ, decrypted at ABCD, and sent to google)Google: Based on the information you sent us, here is the public information regarding the location of that IP address, and we will stick it on a picture of a map for you.Again, it's been a while since I dealt with VPNs, but there doesn't seem to be anything surprising going on here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157118</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary <i>I Love Lucy</i>, deserve neither liberty nor <i>I Love Lucy</i>. - Bob Denver</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary I Love Lucy , deserve neither liberty nor I Love Lucy .
- Bob Denver</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary I Love Lucy, deserve neither liberty nor I Love Lucy.
- Bob Denver</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163376</id>
	<title>The war is not lost - it continues today</title>
	<author>Hyperhaplo</author>
	<datestamp>1266331560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I joined a gym recently (Quick! Dataminers! Add this info you my profile!) and there was two questions on the standard A.S.L being:</p><p>Age: \_\_\_\_\_   D.O.B \_\_/\_\_/\_\_\_\_</p><p>So, I filled in the Age and left DOB blank.</p><p>The woman asked me for my DOB and I asked her why it was required. Being a gym, she repeated the litenay of 'if you are, for example, over a certain age we will need to take this into account' to which I responded:<br>"Great. I've given you my age. It's nowhere near 16 or 60. Why do you need my date of birth?"</p><p>Answer: "For the computer"</p><p>So I asked if it is required. She said she can enter zeros. I warmly thanked her very much.</p><p>No argument. No discussion.</p><p>Ok. It REALLY helped that when the 'gym consultant' (WHY is this required?) sat down to 'discuss' joining the gym the first thing said was 'It is REALLY hard to join this gym'... so she went into the 'I'm about to lose customers' mode.</p><p>---</p><p>Don't give up. Don't give in. Know where the line in the sand is. Push them back across it when they put their toe over. Be prepared to chop off that toe or walk away if required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I joined a gym recently ( Quick !
Dataminers ! Add this info you my profile !
) and there was two questions on the standard A.S.L being : Age : \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ D.O.B \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _So , I filled in the Age and left DOB blank.The woman asked me for my DOB and I asked her why it was required .
Being a gym , she repeated the litenay of 'if you are , for example , over a certain age we will need to take this into account ' to which I responded : " Great .
I 've given you my age .
It 's nowhere near 16 or 60 .
Why do you need my date of birth ?
" Answer : " For the computer " So I asked if it is required .
She said she can enter zeros .
I warmly thanked her very much.No argument .
No discussion.Ok .
It REALLY helped that when the 'gym consultant ' ( WHY is this required ?
) sat down to 'discuss ' joining the gym the first thing said was 'It is REALLY hard to join this gym'... so she went into the 'I 'm about to lose customers ' mode.---Do n't give up .
Do n't give in .
Know where the line in the sand is .
Push them back across it when they put their toe over .
Be prepared to chop off that toe or walk away if required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I joined a gym recently (Quick!
Dataminers! Add this info you my profile!
) and there was two questions on the standard A.S.L being:Age: \_\_\_\_\_   D.O.B \_\_/\_\_/\_\_\_\_So, I filled in the Age and left DOB blank.The woman asked me for my DOB and I asked her why it was required.
Being a gym, she repeated the litenay of 'if you are, for example, over a certain age we will need to take this into account' to which I responded:"Great.
I've given you my age.
It's nowhere near 16 or 60.
Why do you need my date of birth?
"Answer: "For the computer"So I asked if it is required.
She said she can enter zeros.
I warmly thanked her very much.No argument.
No discussion.Ok.
It REALLY helped that when the 'gym consultant' (WHY is this required?
) sat down to 'discuss' joining the gym the first thing said was 'It is REALLY hard to join this gym'... so she went into the 'I'm about to lose customers' mode.---Don't give up.
Don't give in.
Know where the line in the sand is.
Push them back across it when they put their toe over.
Be prepared to chop off that toe or walk away if required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157532</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266346620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Says the logged in user who posts his email address, his homepage address (and by extension his phone number, home address, resume...) just to berate someone else for not taking privacy more seriously. Don't you know that you can comment here without even needing an account? What is your excuse?</p><p>Did you expect the war on privacy to be fought with guns and threats? Of course he's "giving in", surrendering to an offer he can't refuse without turning himself into an outcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Says the logged in user who posts his email address , his homepage address ( and by extension his phone number , home address , resume... ) just to berate someone else for not taking privacy more seriously .
Do n't you know that you can comment here without even needing an account ?
What is your excuse ? Did you expect the war on privacy to be fought with guns and threats ?
Of course he 's " giving in " , surrendering to an offer he ca n't refuse without turning himself into an outcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Says the logged in user who posts his email address, his homepage address (and by extension his phone number, home address, resume...) just to berate someone else for not taking privacy more seriously.
Don't you know that you can comment here without even needing an account?
What is your excuse?Did you expect the war on privacy to be fought with guns and threats?
Of course he's "giving in", surrendering to an offer he can't refuse without turning himself into an outcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161656</id>
	<title>Re:You aren't fighting properly</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1266321480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used? What portion of their resources are used? Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.</p><p>There are 2 flaws in your position on this.</p><p>The first is that you assume that you *know* all the ways that your privacy is being violated.   Do you know that Google tries to track and correlate all your search queries?  Are you going to tell me that you never use Google?   Do you know that Flash cookies exist and persist completely independently of your browser settings and can track you across domains so that entire networks of sites can form a profile of you from what you probably consider to be innocent passive browsing?  Do you know that even just one of your "friends" on Facebook installing an app immediately and irrevocably gives a large amount of data about you to the app they installed (unless you delve deep into Facebook security settings to change the defaults)?  Perhaps you do know these things;  that's not really point.   The average person does not.  Even if you know everything I just mentioned, I would bet there are privacy loopholes that you don't know.</p><p>The second flaw in your position is that you fail to recognize that your assessment about your privacy risk is done now, while the trail you leave is captured permanently and is unerasable and thus is subject to *future* risk of compromise.</p><p>Perhaps you visit some web sites about knives, which are fairly innocuous objects today.   Then one day a knife you happen to have viewed on line is used in a terrorist act.   The authorities force Google to hand over a list of everybody who viewed that particular knife and you are now the subject of an intense investigation.  Had you known the knife would be a terrorist weapon you not have visited the site, but it's too late now.   Or, perhaps you look at some porn one day.  Then a year later you are applying for a job.   The other candidate, however, pays to purchase a profile of your online behavior from a tracking company (such companies *already* exist), and exposes your porn viewing to the employer, who now declines your application for the job.  This can happen a million different ways, but the broad point is that the fact that you are happy for certain information to be public *now* is does not account for future risk, nor the changing meaning of "public" now that information is so easily indexable, trackable and searchable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used ?
What portion of their resources are used ?
Did you catch that use of the word THEIR , these are n't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them , so be it.There are 2 flaws in your position on this.The first is that you assume that you * know * all the ways that your privacy is being violated .
Do you know that Google tries to track and correlate all your search queries ?
Are you going to tell me that you never use Google ?
Do you know that Flash cookies exist and persist completely independently of your browser settings and can track you across domains so that entire networks of sites can form a profile of you from what you probably consider to be innocent passive browsing ?
Do you know that even just one of your " friends " on Facebook installing an app immediately and irrevocably gives a large amount of data about you to the app they installed ( unless you delve deep into Facebook security settings to change the defaults ) ?
Perhaps you do know these things ; that 's not really point .
The average person does not .
Even if you know everything I just mentioned , I would bet there are privacy loopholes that you do n't know.The second flaw in your position is that you fail to recognize that your assessment about your privacy risk is done now , while the trail you leave is captured permanently and is unerasable and thus is subject to * future * risk of compromise.Perhaps you visit some web sites about knives , which are fairly innocuous objects today .
Then one day a knife you happen to have viewed on line is used in a terrorist act .
The authorities force Google to hand over a list of everybody who viewed that particular knife and you are now the subject of an intense investigation .
Had you known the knife would be a terrorist weapon you not have visited the site , but it 's too late now .
Or , perhaps you look at some porn one day .
Then a year later you are applying for a job .
The other candidate , however , pays to purchase a profile of your online behavior from a tracking company ( such companies * already * exist ) , and exposes your porn viewing to the employer , who now declines your application for the job .
This can happen a million different ways , but the broad point is that the fact that you are happy for certain information to be public * now * is does not account for future risk , nor the changing meaning of " public " now that information is so easily indexable , trackable and searchable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used?
What portion of their resources are used?
Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it.There are 2 flaws in your position on this.The first is that you assume that you *know* all the ways that your privacy is being violated.
Do you know that Google tries to track and correlate all your search queries?
Are you going to tell me that you never use Google?
Do you know that Flash cookies exist and persist completely independently of your browser settings and can track you across domains so that entire networks of sites can form a profile of you from what you probably consider to be innocent passive browsing?
Do you know that even just one of your "friends" on Facebook installing an app immediately and irrevocably gives a large amount of data about you to the app they installed (unless you delve deep into Facebook security settings to change the defaults)?
Perhaps you do know these things;  that's not really point.
The average person does not.
Even if you know everything I just mentioned, I would bet there are privacy loopholes that you don't know.The second flaw in your position is that you fail to recognize that your assessment about your privacy risk is done now, while the trail you leave is captured permanently and is unerasable and thus is subject to *future* risk of compromise.Perhaps you visit some web sites about knives, which are fairly innocuous objects today.
Then one day a knife you happen to have viewed on line is used in a terrorist act.
The authorities force Google to hand over a list of everybody who viewed that particular knife and you are now the subject of an intense investigation.
Had you known the knife would be a terrorist weapon you not have visited the site, but it's too late now.
Or, perhaps you look at some porn one day.
Then a year later you are applying for a job.
The other candidate, however, pays to purchase a profile of your online behavior from a tracking company (such companies *already* exist), and exposes your porn viewing to the employer, who now declines your application for the job.
This can happen a million different ways, but the broad point is that the fact that you are happy for certain information to be public *now* is does not account for future risk, nor the changing meaning of "public" now that information is so easily indexable, trackable and searchable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156922</id>
	<title>Privacy is Illusion</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1266344580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy is an illusion at best. At worst, it is an unachievable ideal that can never be attained.</p><p>What we should be doing is making sure that people's information and identity and personal security are paramount in governmental roles.</p><p>The problem is that progressive governance is opposite this. Government intrusion into every sector of a person's life is gaining all sorts of leverage into a person's private life.</p><p>And as we expand government's role into intruding into peoples lives under the guise of "poor, oppressed, needy or weak".</p><p>You were worried by Darth Cheney and rightly so, but are you worried about the Health Care bill, which will probably affect more people than anything Darth Cheney could dream up?</p><p>Of course, if you are willing to give up freedom for security, you will no doubt get neither. And this applies to all those programs from both (R) and (D).</p><p>Privacy is an illusion, because people are so willing to give it up for so little in return.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is an illusion at best .
At worst , it is an unachievable ideal that can never be attained.What we should be doing is making sure that people 's information and identity and personal security are paramount in governmental roles.The problem is that progressive governance is opposite this .
Government intrusion into every sector of a person 's life is gaining all sorts of leverage into a person 's private life.And as we expand government 's role into intruding into peoples lives under the guise of " poor , oppressed , needy or weak " .You were worried by Darth Cheney and rightly so , but are you worried about the Health Care bill , which will probably affect more people than anything Darth Cheney could dream up ? Of course , if you are willing to give up freedom for security , you will no doubt get neither .
And this applies to all those programs from both ( R ) and ( D ) .Privacy is an illusion , because people are so willing to give it up for so little in return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is an illusion at best.
At worst, it is an unachievable ideal that can never be attained.What we should be doing is making sure that people's information and identity and personal security are paramount in governmental roles.The problem is that progressive governance is opposite this.
Government intrusion into every sector of a person's life is gaining all sorts of leverage into a person's private life.And as we expand government's role into intruding into peoples lives under the guise of "poor, oppressed, needy or weak".You were worried by Darth Cheney and rightly so, but are you worried about the Health Care bill, which will probably affect more people than anything Darth Cheney could dream up?Of course, if you are willing to give up freedom for security, you will no doubt get neither.
And this applies to all those programs from both (R) and (D).Privacy is an illusion, because people are so willing to give it up for so little in return.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158842</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1266351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Convenience has always been the enemy of security, and privacy is just another type of security.<br><br>It would be really convenient if I could do all my shopping without leaving my desk, so I'll use my credit card number online.  It would be really convenient if my friends knew where I was all the time, so I'll update my facebook page constantly.  It would be really convenient if I didn't have to remember a lot of passwords, so I'll use the same one.  It would be really convenient if my friends could visit me easily, so I won't lock the front door.  Only bad people would take advantage of me, and I don't know any bad people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Convenience has always been the enemy of security , and privacy is just another type of security.It would be really convenient if I could do all my shopping without leaving my desk , so I 'll use my credit card number online .
It would be really convenient if my friends knew where I was all the time , so I 'll update my facebook page constantly .
It would be really convenient if I did n't have to remember a lot of passwords , so I 'll use the same one .
It would be really convenient if my friends could visit me easily , so I wo n't lock the front door .
Only bad people would take advantage of me , and I do n't know any bad people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Convenience has always been the enemy of security, and privacy is just another type of security.It would be really convenient if I could do all my shopping without leaving my desk, so I'll use my credit card number online.
It would be really convenient if my friends knew where I was all the time, so I'll update my facebook page constantly.
It would be really convenient if I didn't have to remember a lot of passwords, so I'll use the same one.
It would be really convenient if my friends could visit me easily, so I won't lock the front door.
Only bad people would take advantage of me, and I don't know any bad people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156830</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1266344280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are agreeing to give up your privacy. You are not losing - you surrendered.</p></div><p>Doesn't he know that AT&amp;T's motto is, "Your World Delivered... to the NSA"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are agreeing to give up your privacy .
You are not losing - you surrendered.Does n't he know that AT&amp;T 's motto is , " Your World Delivered... to the NSA "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are agreeing to give up your privacy.
You are not losing - you surrendered.Doesn't he know that AT&amp;T's motto is, "Your World Delivered... to the NSA"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157556</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1266346680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offer to live at other people's homes and pay cash for any and all services. Move monthly. Buy fake ID. Get psychologically weirded out. Commit suicide because you are such a social leper that you have no one to talk to about the latest gossip about the stars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offer to live at other people 's homes and pay cash for any and all services .
Move monthly .
Buy fake ID .
Get psychologically weirded out .
Commit suicide because you are such a social leper that you have no one to talk to about the latest gossip about the stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offer to live at other people's homes and pay cash for any and all services.
Move monthly.
Buy fake ID.
Get psychologically weirded out.
Commit suicide because you are such a social leper that you have no one to talk to about the latest gossip about the stars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1266343320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That is to say, SSL, TOR, NoFlash, NoScript etc, still don't have a place in our lives as geeks.</p></div></blockquote><p>Speak for yourself, not all geeks share your defeatism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is to say , SSL , TOR , NoFlash , NoScript etc , still do n't have a place in our lives as geeks.Speak for yourself , not all geeks share your defeatism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is to say, SSL, TOR, NoFlash, NoScript etc, still don't have a place in our lives as geeks.Speak for yourself, not all geeks share your defeatism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157416</id>
	<title>The VIEW, not just for Walters anymore</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1266346140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe. "</p><p>Lame.</p><p>Obviously they need to ask thier DBAs to setup a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View\_(database)" title="wikipedia.org">VIEW</a> [wikipedia.org] for that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I know I 'm not that interesting to anyone , but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe .
" Lame.Obviously they need to ask thier DBAs to setup a VIEW [ wikipedia.org ] for that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe.
"Lame.Obviously they need to ask thier DBAs to setup a VIEW [wikipedia.org] for that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156718</id>
	<title>Re:Accept and enjoy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wouldn't be if some people weren't set on sitting in judgement of others and regulating their actions based on preconceptions and prejudices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't be if some people were n't set on sitting in judgement of others and regulating their actions based on preconceptions and prejudices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't be if some people weren't set on sitting in judgement of others and regulating their actions based on preconceptions and prejudices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157312</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1266345840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is how I communicate (somewhat) anonymously.</p><ol>
<li>Whole disk encryption on netbook.</li><li>Make sure to use noscript and disable all other browser addons.</li><li>Connect to website from public wireless access point.</li><li>Make sure to save website's SSL cert.</li><li>Create account.</li><li>Go home.</li><li>Connect to website using Tor.</li></ol><p>Admittedly there are still possible security breaches but it's a lot more anonymous and safe than just adopting a defeatist attitude and rolling over, you still have to remember stuff like scrubbing EXIF data and messing the noise levels in images if you plan on uploading images.</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is how I communicate ( somewhat ) anonymously .
Whole disk encryption on netbook.Make sure to use noscript and disable all other browser addons.Connect to website from public wireless access point.Make sure to save website 's SSL cert.Create account.Go home.Connect to website using Tor.Admittedly there are still possible security breaches but it 's a lot more anonymous and safe than just adopting a defeatist attitude and rolling over , you still have to remember stuff like scrubbing EXIF data and messing the noise levels in images if you plan on uploading images./Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is how I communicate (somewhat) anonymously.
Whole disk encryption on netbook.Make sure to use noscript and disable all other browser addons.Connect to website from public wireless access point.Make sure to save website's SSL cert.Create account.Go home.Connect to website using Tor.Admittedly there are still possible security breaches but it's a lot more anonymous and safe than just adopting a defeatist attitude and rolling over, you still have to remember stuff like scrubbing EXIF data and messing the noise levels in images if you plan on uploading images./Mikael</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161366</id>
	<title>Re:Good privacy is really difficult</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use two different browsers.</p><p>
Connect to hotel/motel WiFi with first browser.<br>
Setup script to keep getting a static page somewhere so hotel/motel WiFi plays nice and doesn't dump you're connection.<br>
Setup tunnel/VPN/whatever.<br>
If need be, setup proxy/proxies (Don't forget DNS) for 2nd browser.<br>
Use 2nd browser.<br>
Call hookers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use two different browsers .
Connect to hotel/motel WiFi with first browser .
Setup script to keep getting a static page somewhere so hotel/motel WiFi plays nice and does n't dump you 're connection .
Setup tunnel/VPN/whatever .
If need be , setup proxy/proxies ( Do n't forget DNS ) for 2nd browser .
Use 2nd browser .
Call hookers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use two different browsers.
Connect to hotel/motel WiFi with first browser.
Setup script to keep getting a static page somewhere so hotel/motel WiFi plays nice and doesn't dump you're connection.
Setup tunnel/VPN/whatever.
If need be, setup proxy/proxies (Don't forget DNS) for 2nd browser.
Use 2nd browser.
Call hookers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156714</id>
	<title>Winning the war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best reply in this thread<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "The only way to win the war is not to play."   Sounds like it came from the movie War Games.   That poster was correct, you must drop off the grid, the net, the planet.  Of course if the black hats developed sufficient "counter measures" that we could all employ, perhaps we could pollute the data pool to the point that it became worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best reply in this thread ... " The only way to win the war is not to play .
" Sounds like it came from the movie War Games .
That poster was correct , you must drop off the grid , the net , the planet .
Of course if the black hats developed sufficient " counter measures " that we could all employ , perhaps we could pollute the data pool to the point that it became worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best reply in this thread ... "The only way to win the war is not to play.
"   Sounds like it came from the movie War Games.
That poster was correct, you must drop off the grid, the net, the planet.
Of course if the black hats developed sufficient "counter measures" that we could all employ, perhaps we could pollute the data pool to the point that it became worthless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163792</id>
	<title>There's no privacy</title>
	<author>mikein08</author>
	<datestamp>1266334980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We lost the privacy war years ago.  There is no
- I repeat no - privacy on the web.  So get over
it.

If you want privacy, do these things: don't give
your ssn to anyone except irs and ssa for any
reason; stay off the web; get an anonymous cell
phone and cancel your landline phone;  don't use
credit or debit cards, pay all your bills in cash;
have all your mail delivered to a po box.  Don't
tell anyone where you live and have at least one
ghost address.  And most importantly, read JJ Luna's book on the subject of privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We lost the privacy war years ago .
There is no - I repeat no - privacy on the web .
So get over it .
If you want privacy , do these things : do n't give your ssn to anyone except irs and ssa for any reason ; stay off the web ; get an anonymous cell phone and cancel your landline phone ; do n't use credit or debit cards , pay all your bills in cash ; have all your mail delivered to a po box .
Do n't tell anyone where you live and have at least one ghost address .
And most importantly , read JJ Luna 's book on the subject of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We lost the privacy war years ago.
There is no
- I repeat no - privacy on the web.
So get over
it.
If you want privacy, do these things: don't give
your ssn to anyone except irs and ssa for any
reason; stay off the web; get an anonymous cell
phone and cancel your landline phone;  don't use
credit or debit cards, pay all your bills in cash;
have all your mail delivered to a po box.
Don't
tell anyone where you live and have at least one
ghost address.
And most importantly, read JJ Luna's book on the subject of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</id>
	<title>Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1266343140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no privacy, none. Any hacker, any private investigator, any stalker, can access your data from thousands of private or public databases. If you are jewish then the neo-nazi's probably already know where you live. If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live. If you disagree with how I think on privacy, I could find out where you live.</p><p>And nothing stops me from creating a huge list of names and addresses, putting it into a database, and selling this list to advertises so they can spam you. And nothing stops anyone from selling your health records to the nazi's, the mafia, the street gang, the Republicans. So if you are a gay homosexual you can expect that your medical records will be accessed. If you are Barack Obama then you can expect your cellphone records to be accessed <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10104997-83.html" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10104997-83.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>The far right, those people who vote for Sarah Palin and who have all those guns and bibles, those people who don't believe in evolution, they know where you live and they know everything about you because you added a Republican to your facebook page. And if you added a liberal then you can expect that those global warming crazies and anti-globalists will know where to find you and all your vulnerabilities.</p><p>So why don't you have a right to privacy? You don't have a right to privacy because your life just isn't important to the government. The government knows that most Americans are dumb breeders who will pop out babies just like the Octomom. If you die the Octomom will have another baby and replace you. Corporations don't see you as anything more than consumers. And political parties only care about you when you think like they do and are willing to serve their special interests.</p><p>Face it, you aren't all that and nobody is protecting you or your privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no privacy , none .
Any hacker , any private investigator , any stalker , can access your data from thousands of private or public databases .
If you are jewish then the neo-nazi 's probably already know where you live .
If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live .
If you disagree with how I think on privacy , I could find out where you live.And nothing stops me from creating a huge list of names and addresses , putting it into a database , and selling this list to advertises so they can spam you .
And nothing stops anyone from selling your health records to the nazi 's , the mafia , the street gang , the Republicans .
So if you are a gay homosexual you can expect that your medical records will be accessed .
If you are Barack Obama then you can expect your cellphone records to be accessed http : //news.cnet.com/8301-1009 \ _3-10104997-83.html [ cnet.com ] The far right , those people who vote for Sarah Palin and who have all those guns and bibles , those people who do n't believe in evolution , they know where you live and they know everything about you because you added a Republican to your facebook page .
And if you added a liberal then you can expect that those global warming crazies and anti-globalists will know where to find you and all your vulnerabilities.So why do n't you have a right to privacy ?
You do n't have a right to privacy because your life just is n't important to the government .
The government knows that most Americans are dumb breeders who will pop out babies just like the Octomom .
If you die the Octomom will have another baby and replace you .
Corporations do n't see you as anything more than consumers .
And political parties only care about you when you think like they do and are willing to serve their special interests.Face it , you are n't all that and nobody is protecting you or your privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no privacy, none.
Any hacker, any private investigator, any stalker, can access your data from thousands of private or public databases.
If you are jewish then the neo-nazi's probably already know where you live.
If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.
If you disagree with how I think on privacy, I could find out where you live.And nothing stops me from creating a huge list of names and addresses, putting it into a database, and selling this list to advertises so they can spam you.
And nothing stops anyone from selling your health records to the nazi's, the mafia, the street gang, the Republicans.
So if you are a gay homosexual you can expect that your medical records will be accessed.
If you are Barack Obama then you can expect your cellphone records to be accessed http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10104997-83.html [cnet.com]The far right, those people who vote for Sarah Palin and who have all those guns and bibles, those people who don't believe in evolution, they know where you live and they know everything about you because you added a Republican to your facebook page.
And if you added a liberal then you can expect that those global warming crazies and anti-globalists will know where to find you and all your vulnerabilities.So why don't you have a right to privacy?
You don't have a right to privacy because your life just isn't important to the government.
The government knows that most Americans are dumb breeders who will pop out babies just like the Octomom.
If you die the Octomom will have another baby and replace you.
Corporations don't see you as anything more than consumers.
And political parties only care about you when you think like they do and are willing to serve their special interests.Face it, you aren't all that and nobody is protecting you or your privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157212</id>
	<title>On Some Things I WANT to be Monitored</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1266345480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want the cable company monitoring my television viewing habits. That's how they know to make more shows that I want to see. I also want them to advertise stuff I actually want to buy.<br> <br>

I don't approve of all monitoring, to be sure. I believe in privacy for most things, but some monitoring has tangible benefits for me.<br> <br>

I would naturally prefer to have to opt in, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want the cable company monitoring my television viewing habits .
That 's how they know to make more shows that I want to see .
I also want them to advertise stuff I actually want to buy .
I do n't approve of all monitoring , to be sure .
I believe in privacy for most things , but some monitoring has tangible benefits for me .
I would naturally prefer to have to opt in , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want the cable company monitoring my television viewing habits.
That's how they know to make more shows that I want to see.
I also want them to advertise stuff I actually want to buy.
I don't approve of all monitoring, to be sure.
I believe in privacy for most things, but some monitoring has tangible benefits for me.
I would naturally prefer to have to opt in, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156392</id>
	<title>Fighting the fight?</title>
	<author>Ardx</author>
	<datestamp>1266342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to be a bit anal about my online presence, but relaxed after I saw the amount of data mining done that the end user does not have control over. I decided that while I will still opt-out where and when I can, but there is no way to prevent a lot of the data mining unless I am willing to give up a lot of creature comforts and live off the grid in a cave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be a bit anal about my online presence , but relaxed after I saw the amount of data mining done that the end user does not have control over .
I decided that while I will still opt-out where and when I can , but there is no way to prevent a lot of the data mining unless I am willing to give up a lot of creature comforts and live off the grid in a cave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be a bit anal about my online presence, but relaxed after I saw the amount of data mining done that the end user does not have control over.
I decided that while I will still opt-out where and when I can, but there is no way to prevent a lot of the data mining unless I am willing to give up a lot of creature comforts and live off the grid in a cave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424</id>
	<title>You aren't fighting properly</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266342840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can agree not to give the companies your social security number - at least here in Canada. There is some law regarding that information only be required to do credit checks, otherwise a company can't NOT give you service based on you retaining your info.</p><p>You will have to give them some other piece of Identifying information though, but it doesn't have to be permanent. Usually an address works - my ISP and Mobile phone (as thats the only services I purchase) don't have any information on me besides my phone number (obviously), my address, my name, and I thiiiiink my Date of Birth, but I might have actually retained that.</p><p>Anyways, as for paranoia, if you've got nothing to hide than I don't see why anything makes you cringe. I've got things to hide and I still don't worry about it. I know if you enter my full name in Google you'll get a page and a half on just me - My Facebook Profile, some news article clippings of me, sites I've visitted. Microsoft Outlook support forums had quite a few, by the way. Why I registered with my real name is beyond me, but whatever.</p><p>What it boils down to is what you need versus what you want. Some providers want to be able to give you certain services on the basis that they can sell ads targetted directly at you. If you don't want that, don't sign up for it, simple as that. Don't put anything online that you don't want found. If you steer clear of Social networking sites like Facebook, you can expect a reasonable level of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can agree not to give the companies your social security number - at least here in Canada .
There is some law regarding that information only be required to do credit checks , otherwise a company ca n't NOT give you service based on you retaining your info.You will have to give them some other piece of Identifying information though , but it does n't have to be permanent .
Usually an address works - my ISP and Mobile phone ( as thats the only services I purchase ) do n't have any information on me besides my phone number ( obviously ) , my address , my name , and I thiiiiink my Date of Birth , but I might have actually retained that.Anyways , as for paranoia , if you 've got nothing to hide than I do n't see why anything makes you cringe .
I 've got things to hide and I still do n't worry about it .
I know if you enter my full name in Google you 'll get a page and a half on just me - My Facebook Profile , some news article clippings of me , sites I 've visitted .
Microsoft Outlook support forums had quite a few , by the way .
Why I registered with my real name is beyond me , but whatever.What it boils down to is what you need versus what you want .
Some providers want to be able to give you certain services on the basis that they can sell ads targetted directly at you .
If you do n't want that , do n't sign up for it , simple as that .
Do n't put anything online that you do n't want found .
If you steer clear of Social networking sites like Facebook , you can expect a reasonable level of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can agree not to give the companies your social security number - at least here in Canada.
There is some law regarding that information only be required to do credit checks, otherwise a company can't NOT give you service based on you retaining your info.You will have to give them some other piece of Identifying information though, but it doesn't have to be permanent.
Usually an address works - my ISP and Mobile phone (as thats the only services I purchase) don't have any information on me besides my phone number (obviously), my address, my name, and I thiiiiink my Date of Birth, but I might have actually retained that.Anyways, as for paranoia, if you've got nothing to hide than I don't see why anything makes you cringe.
I've got things to hide and I still don't worry about it.
I know if you enter my full name in Google you'll get a page and a half on just me - My Facebook Profile, some news article clippings of me, sites I've visitted.
Microsoft Outlook support forums had quite a few, by the way.
Why I registered with my real name is beyond me, but whatever.What it boils down to is what you need versus what you want.
Some providers want to be able to give you certain services on the basis that they can sell ads targetted directly at you.
If you don't want that, don't sign up for it, simple as that.
Don't put anything online that you don't want found.
If you steer clear of Social networking sites like Facebook, you can expect a reasonable level of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156438</id>
	<title>Get !Prozac.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This amazing new drug from Pfizer called !Prozac, pronounced Not-Prozac. It has the complete opposite effect on a human body. !Prozac, when ingested by a normal human being, it will trigger multiple-personality-disorder. Now you can use one identity for your normal law-abiding activities without any concern about privacy and data mining etc. Then you can use the other identity for nefarious, criminal and/or shameful activities.  Infact the other identify can ingest another dose of !Prozac and create another personality. Recursively! Your criminal personality A does not have to know what your shameful personality B is doing.  Just look at the hoops people are willing to jump through just to get prOn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This amazing new drug from Pfizer called ! Prozac , pronounced Not-Prozac .
It has the complete opposite effect on a human body .
! Prozac , when ingested by a normal human being , it will trigger multiple-personality-disorder .
Now you can use one identity for your normal law-abiding activities without any concern about privacy and data mining etc .
Then you can use the other identity for nefarious , criminal and/or shameful activities .
Infact the other identify can ingest another dose of ! Prozac and create another personality .
Recursively ! Your criminal personality A does not have to know what your shameful personality B is doing .
Just look at the hoops people are willing to jump through just to get prOn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This amazing new drug from Pfizer called !Prozac, pronounced Not-Prozac.
It has the complete opposite effect on a human body.
!Prozac, when ingested by a normal human being, it will trigger multiple-personality-disorder.
Now you can use one identity for your normal law-abiding activities without any concern about privacy and data mining etc.
Then you can use the other identity for nefarious, criminal and/or shameful activities.
Infact the other identify can ingest another dose of !Prozac and create another personality.
Recursively! Your criminal personality A does not have to know what your shameful personality B is doing.
Just look at the hoops people are willing to jump through just to get prOn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156804</id>
	<title>Re:Err no</title>
	<author>fearlezz</author>
	<datestamp>1266344220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most other countries didn't even have a blitzkrieg, people did an Anschluss instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most other countries did n't even have a blitzkrieg , people did an Anschluss instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most other countries didn't even have a blitzkrieg, people did an Anschluss instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157158</id>
	<title>I'll just say it again</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1266345300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was no war.  The anti-privacy-fuck fairy visited us all very quietly over the last 20 years and screwed us slowly.</p><p>Actually, it all started with the social security number and people's insistence that it be used as an identification number for "everything."  There was a good fight when that was coming about and while opponents were successful in getting the FEDERAL government to write legislation restricting the use of SSNs for anything other than for social security accounting purposes (you can request a tax payer ID number from the IRS which looks exactly like a SSN) pretty much everyone else is free to abuse the numbers as they see fit.</p><p>Here's the problem as I see it.</p><p>Big business had a major stumbling block under "the old system."  The old system was the one without a credit reporting system.  They used credit references submitted by the applicant.  This meant that the system could not be automated and at most would have to be processed through a clearing house with real people making requests and issuing reports.  This was EXPENSIVE and time consuming, not to mention error prone and pretty easy to work around.  This was a stumbling block because it effectively limited how much and how quickly they could grow their business, merge with other businesses or any of the things that happened a lot during the 80's with all those corporate take-overs.</p><p>But the very moment the database of consumers was created using the SSN as the key field, the big business stumbling block was removed.  As a bonus, with the clever renaming of "fraud" to "identity theft" they were able to shift the burden away from themselves and onto the innocent heads of the consumers who are in no way responsible for the mishandling of their personal data and are in no way capable of controlling the data that is used to identify them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no war .
The anti-privacy-fuck fairy visited us all very quietly over the last 20 years and screwed us slowly.Actually , it all started with the social security number and people 's insistence that it be used as an identification number for " everything .
" There was a good fight when that was coming about and while opponents were successful in getting the FEDERAL government to write legislation restricting the use of SSNs for anything other than for social security accounting purposes ( you can request a tax payer ID number from the IRS which looks exactly like a SSN ) pretty much everyone else is free to abuse the numbers as they see fit.Here 's the problem as I see it.Big business had a major stumbling block under " the old system .
" The old system was the one without a credit reporting system .
They used credit references submitted by the applicant .
This meant that the system could not be automated and at most would have to be processed through a clearing house with real people making requests and issuing reports .
This was EXPENSIVE and time consuming , not to mention error prone and pretty easy to work around .
This was a stumbling block because it effectively limited how much and how quickly they could grow their business , merge with other businesses or any of the things that happened a lot during the 80 's with all those corporate take-overs.But the very moment the database of consumers was created using the SSN as the key field , the big business stumbling block was removed .
As a bonus , with the clever renaming of " fraud " to " identity theft " they were able to shift the burden away from themselves and onto the innocent heads of the consumers who are in no way responsible for the mishandling of their personal data and are in no way capable of controlling the data that is used to identify them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no war.
The anti-privacy-fuck fairy visited us all very quietly over the last 20 years and screwed us slowly.Actually, it all started with the social security number and people's insistence that it be used as an identification number for "everything.
"  There was a good fight when that was coming about and while opponents were successful in getting the FEDERAL government to write legislation restricting the use of SSNs for anything other than for social security accounting purposes (you can request a tax payer ID number from the IRS which looks exactly like a SSN) pretty much everyone else is free to abuse the numbers as they see fit.Here's the problem as I see it.Big business had a major stumbling block under "the old system.
"  The old system was the one without a credit reporting system.
They used credit references submitted by the applicant.
This meant that the system could not be automated and at most would have to be processed through a clearing house with real people making requests and issuing reports.
This was EXPENSIVE and time consuming, not to mention error prone and pretty easy to work around.
This was a stumbling block because it effectively limited how much and how quickly they could grow their business, merge with other businesses or any of the things that happened a lot during the 80's with all those corporate take-overs.But the very moment the database of consumers was created using the SSN as the key field, the big business stumbling block was removed.
As a bonus, with the clever renaming of "fraud" to "identity theft" they were able to shift the burden away from themselves and onto the innocent heads of the consumers who are in no way responsible for the mishandling of their personal data and are in no way capable of controlling the data that is used to identify them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159890</id>
	<title>What privacy?</title>
	<author>nivek1385</author>
	<datestamp>1266313500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two things sort of on topic: first, I remember that AT&amp;T U-Verse had some issues in one of the states due to its privacy policy (want to say that it was WI and there was a big deal with that a couple years ago).  Second, according to what they use in the training materials, they do indeed need to have your SSN due to government regulations (same reasons why you're supposed to have a physical address and not just a P.O. box for things like credit cards and cell phones).

That being said, I see exactly where you're coming from and am afraid of losing what little privacy we have left.  There's also the little cameras that Comcast at least was thinking about putting inside their set-top boxes along with "body recognition software" to further data-mine what you watch.  I remember that that was a selling point for U-Verse when that was leaked from Comcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things sort of on topic : first , I remember that AT&amp;T U-Verse had some issues in one of the states due to its privacy policy ( want to say that it was WI and there was a big deal with that a couple years ago ) .
Second , according to what they use in the training materials , they do indeed need to have your SSN due to government regulations ( same reasons why you 're supposed to have a physical address and not just a P.O .
box for things like credit cards and cell phones ) .
That being said , I see exactly where you 're coming from and am afraid of losing what little privacy we have left .
There 's also the little cameras that Comcast at least was thinking about putting inside their set-top boxes along with " body recognition software " to further data-mine what you watch .
I remember that that was a selling point for U-Verse when that was leaked from Comcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things sort of on topic: first, I remember that AT&amp;T U-Verse had some issues in one of the states due to its privacy policy (want to say that it was WI and there was a big deal with that a couple years ago).
Second, according to what they use in the training materials, they do indeed need to have your SSN due to government regulations (same reasons why you're supposed to have a physical address and not just a P.O.
box for things like credit cards and cell phones).
That being said, I see exactly where you're coming from and am afraid of losing what little privacy we have left.
There's also the little cameras that Comcast at least was thinking about putting inside their set-top boxes along with "body recognition software" to further data-mine what you watch.
I remember that that was a selling point for U-Verse when that was leaked from Comcast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156516</id>
	<title>RE: Privacy war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for being a loyal AT&amp;T U-verse customer! We have received your email and have created a trouble ticket for you automatically by monitoring your web postings. Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.</p><p>Thank you. AT&amp;T Customer Service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for being a loyal AT&amp;T U-verse customer !
We have received your email and have created a trouble ticket for you automatically by monitoring your web postings .
Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.Thank you .
AT&amp;T Customer Service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for being a loyal AT&amp;T U-verse customer!
We have received your email and have created a trouble ticket for you automatically by monitoring your web postings.
Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.Thank you.
AT&amp;T Customer Service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157144</id>
	<title>Re:Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't told the OP anything he doesn't already know, but more to the point you haven't provided any reasoning as to why the OP (or anyone else) should just accept the way things currently are cannot be changed.  It is literally an objective fact that your post is completely worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't told the OP anything he does n't already know , but more to the point you have n't provided any reasoning as to why the OP ( or anyone else ) should just accept the way things currently are can not be changed .
It is literally an objective fact that your post is completely worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't told the OP anything he doesn't already know, but more to the point you haven't provided any reasoning as to why the OP (or anyone else) should just accept the way things currently are cannot be changed.
It is literally an objective fact that your post is completely worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159766</id>
	<title>In a nutshell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]<br>I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it. I just can't take this anymore.<br>[/quote]</p><p>There's  your problem. You are prepared to put up with this (so, apparently you *can* take it anymore).</p><p>Until more people "vote with their feet" (V.I Lenin) this won't go away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it .
I just ca n't take this anymore .
[ /quote ] There 's your problem .
You are prepared to put up with this ( so , apparently you * can * take it anymore ) .Until more people " vote with their feet " ( V.I Lenin ) this wo n't go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.
I just can't take this anymore.
[/quote]There's  your problem.
You are prepared to put up with this (so, apparently you *can* take it anymore).Until more people "vote with their feet" (V.I Lenin) this won't go away.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159538</id>
	<title>Your a thief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266311820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi.</p><p>You didnt loose youre privacy. All you have done is ripped off all the other people that provide you content by disallowing them any form of profit with the scripts.<br>Why not rather next time turn of your script blocling things when they rightfully deserve the money....</p><p>Oh wait... your privacy.</p><p>Oh wait... your american right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi.You didnt loose youre privacy .
All you have done is ripped off all the other people that provide you content by disallowing them any form of profit with the scripts.Why not rather next time turn of your script blocling things when they rightfully deserve the money....Oh wait... your privacy.Oh wait... your american right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi.You didnt loose youre privacy.
All you have done is ripped off all the other people that provide you content by disallowing them any form of profit with the scripts.Why not rather next time turn of your script blocling things when they rightfully deserve the money....Oh wait... your privacy.Oh wait... your american right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157348</id>
	<title>TV Watching Habits</title>
	<author>Cymsdale</author>
	<datestamp>1266345960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits</p></div><p>I want media companies to know what shows I watch, because I want them to keep showing shows that I like to watch.

I like privacy, I think privacy is important, but fear that privacy advocates will take so many actions to make "good" media unprofitable, it will only push us toward a future with nothing but American Idol spin-offs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habitsI want media companies to know what shows I watch , because I want them to keep showing shows that I like to watch .
I like privacy , I think privacy is important , but fear that privacy advocates will take so many actions to make " good " media unprofitable , it will only push us toward a future with nothing but American Idol spin-offs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habitsI want media companies to know what shows I watch, because I want them to keep showing shows that I like to watch.
I like privacy, I think privacy is important, but fear that privacy advocates will take so many actions to make "good" media unprofitable, it will only push us toward a future with nothing but American Idol spin-offs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156828</id>
	<title>Re:Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1266344280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.</p><p>I can't exactly picture Al Franken and Russ Feingold sitting around smoking cigars and laughing while their servers churn away printing reports about opposition voters.  Now Cheney on the other hand...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.I ca n't exactly picture Al Franken and Russ Feingold sitting around smoking cigars and laughing while their servers churn away printing reports about opposition voters .
Now Cheney on the other hand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;If you voted for Bush the lefties already know who you are and where you live.I can't exactly picture Al Franken and Russ Feingold sitting around smoking cigars and laughing while their servers churn away printing reports about opposition voters.
Now Cheney on the other hand...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159064</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266352620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ran into a SSN problem with Charter the other day when I wanted to make changes to my account.  When I originally setup my account they asked my for my SSN and I refused to give it.  They were okay with that.  I wanted to remove some services from my account but I was at work and didn't have my bill with me.  They absolutely refused to make the changes because they "couldn't" identify me.  I gave them my name, service address and even provided them with the exact amount of the last three bills that I paid (I had access to it via my online banking account).  I even gave them the last four digits of my account number (my online banking only displays the last four digits for security reasons).  Their only validation was to have me provide them with the last four digits of my SSN or my account number.  I didn't have my account number, and they didn't have my SSN.  It was a cluster fuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran into a SSN problem with Charter the other day when I wanted to make changes to my account .
When I originally setup my account they asked my for my SSN and I refused to give it .
They were okay with that .
I wanted to remove some services from my account but I was at work and did n't have my bill with me .
They absolutely refused to make the changes because they " could n't " identify me .
I gave them my name , service address and even provided them with the exact amount of the last three bills that I paid ( I had access to it via my online banking account ) .
I even gave them the last four digits of my account number ( my online banking only displays the last four digits for security reasons ) .
Their only validation was to have me provide them with the last four digits of my SSN or my account number .
I did n't have my account number , and they did n't have my SSN .
It was a cluster fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran into a SSN problem with Charter the other day when I wanted to make changes to my account.
When I originally setup my account they asked my for my SSN and I refused to give it.
They were okay with that.
I wanted to remove some services from my account but I was at work and didn't have my bill with me.
They absolutely refused to make the changes because they "couldn't" identify me.
I gave them my name, service address and even provided them with the exact amount of the last three bills that I paid (I had access to it via my online banking account).
I even gave them the last four digits of my account number (my online banking only displays the last four digits for security reasons).
Their only validation was to have me provide them with the last four digits of my SSN or my account number.
I didn't have my account number, and they didn't have my SSN.
It was a cluster fuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157502</id>
	<title>Re: Privacy war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266346500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.</p></div><p>I am a constipated woman, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.I am a constipated woman , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please submit both a fresh semen sample and a two day old fecal sample so our customer service reps can verify your information and begin to investigate the issue.I am a constipated woman, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31166918</id>
	<title>Jamming</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1265022540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can't stop them watching you, your only resort is to jam them with useless and misleading information. So instead of poking their noses into your legitimate purposeful activities, they'll then be forced to spend time analysing why you're seen on surveillance cameras every Saturday at 3.15pm looking into the window of Erotic Cakes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't stop them watching you , your only resort is to jam them with useless and misleading information .
So instead of poking their noses into your legitimate purposeful activities , they 'll then be forced to spend time analysing why you 're seen on surveillance cameras every Saturday at 3.15pm looking into the window of Erotic Cakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't stop them watching you, your only resort is to jam them with useless and misleading information.
So instead of poking their noses into your legitimate purposeful activities, they'll then be forced to spend time analysing why you're seen on surveillance cameras every Saturday at 3.15pm looking into the window of Erotic Cakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158168</id>
	<title>You surrendered</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1266349080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.</p></div></blockquote><p>People who don't opt in, aren't having that problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it.People who do n't opt in , are n't having that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.People who don't opt in, aren't having that problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31168708</id>
	<title>Dude WTF are you doing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are so worried about privacy then why did you go with AT&amp;T?  WTF guy the biggest violator of privacy laws and you giving them money?  IF you were so concerned about privacy then why did you sign with them?  The best way to fight assholes like AT&amp;T is with your wallet and here you are feeding the monster.  People like you are the reason this problem is so bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are so worried about privacy then why did you go with AT&amp;T ?
WTF guy the biggest violator of privacy laws and you giving them money ?
IF you were so concerned about privacy then why did you sign with them ?
The best way to fight assholes like AT&amp;T is with your wallet and here you are feeding the monster .
People like you are the reason this problem is so bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are so worried about privacy then why did you go with AT&amp;T?
WTF guy the biggest violator of privacy laws and you giving them money?
IF you were so concerned about privacy then why did you sign with them?
The best way to fight assholes like AT&amp;T is with your wallet and here you are feeding the monster.
People like you are the reason this problem is so bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156824</id>
	<title>Privacy is more nuanced than that...</title>
	<author>yar</author>
	<datestamp>1266344280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy is a nebulous concept, and it's possible that in some cases, we give up privacy, and in others, we don't. It's not necessarily a binary on/off thing that you either have or you don't. I don't believe that people who say that privacy is dead are correct; or if they are, it's a very narrow view of privacy. You still don't have people watching you in the shower, for example. (Hopefully...)</p><p>Check out Daniel Solove's work- here's a good start.<br>"I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy<br>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=998565&amp;rec=1&amp;srcabs=667622</p><p>He's got some other interesting articles on the subject there, and some interesting books as well.</p><p>There are still things you can fight for to protect privacy, even if you are giving up some facets. You can fight against ubiquitous surveillance, and continue to do the things that you're doing to protect your privacy. You can help make threats to privacy transparent, for example, by supporting groups like EFF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is a nebulous concept , and it 's possible that in some cases , we give up privacy , and in others , we do n't .
It 's not necessarily a binary on/off thing that you either have or you do n't .
I do n't believe that people who say that privacy is dead are correct ; or if they are , it 's a very narrow view of privacy .
You still do n't have people watching you in the shower , for example .
( Hopefully... ) Check out Daniel Solove 's work- here 's a good start .
" I 've got nothing to hide " and other misunderstandings of privacyhttp : //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ? abstract \ _id = 998565&amp;rec = 1&amp;srcabs = 667622He 's got some other interesting articles on the subject there , and some interesting books as well.There are still things you can fight for to protect privacy , even if you are giving up some facets .
You can fight against ubiquitous surveillance , and continue to do the things that you 're doing to protect your privacy .
You can help make threats to privacy transparent , for example , by supporting groups like EFF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is a nebulous concept, and it's possible that in some cases, we give up privacy, and in others, we don't.
It's not necessarily a binary on/off thing that you either have or you don't.
I don't believe that people who say that privacy is dead are correct; or if they are, it's a very narrow view of privacy.
You still don't have people watching you in the shower, for example.
(Hopefully...)Check out Daniel Solove's work- here's a good start.
"I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacyhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=998565&amp;rec=1&amp;srcabs=667622He's got some other interesting articles on the subject there, and some interesting books as well.There are still things you can fight for to protect privacy, even if you are giving up some facets.
You can fight against ubiquitous surveillance, and continue to do the things that you're doing to protect your privacy.
You can help make threats to privacy transparent, for example, by supporting groups like EFF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156422</id>
	<title>You gave up.</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1266342840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it."</p><p>There wasn't a war to lose, you surrendered before it even started. You are Czechoslovakia in 1938. You sound paranoid about your online privacy but yet you remain online, a system that wasn't designed with privacy in mind, all the things you are doing still leave traces, server logs, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it .
" There was n't a war to lose , you surrendered before it even started .
You are Czechoslovakia in 1938 .
You sound paranoid about your online privacy but yet you remain online , a system that was n't designed with privacy in mind , all the things you are doing still leave traces , server logs , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.
"There wasn't a war to lose, you surrendered before it even started.
You are Czechoslovakia in 1938.
You sound paranoid about your online privacy but yet you remain online, a system that wasn't designed with privacy in mind, all the things you are doing still leave traces, server logs, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157164</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1266345300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in TX and when I got my first contract I didn't even have a SSN and they opened my account no problem on T-Mobile. I think the SSN is just needed to run a credit check if you will be using credit, but if you prepay everything then it's OK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in TX and when I got my first contract I did n't even have a SSN and they opened my account no problem on T-Mobile .
I think the SSN is just needed to run a credit check if you will be using credit , but if you prepay everything then it 's OK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in TX and when I got my first contract I didn't even have a SSN and they opened my account no problem on T-Mobile.
I think the SSN is just needed to run a credit check if you will be using credit, but if you prepay everything then it's OK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158008</id>
	<title>Re:Medical needs it.</title>
	<author>alcourt</author>
	<datestamp>1266348480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is rapidly changing.  A certain large employer forced their health insurance provider for employees to issue new ID cards to all members using alternative identification numbers a few years back.</p><p>The problem isn't use of SSN.  It could be name/address/date (full name, an address, and a date that one was at that address).  While longer, that's also a specific identifier.  Anyone who ships to you will have at least address and a date automatically.  Getting a name is trivial from that point (though it may be your roommate instead).</p><p>The problem is use of SSN as combination identifier and authentication token.  Few seem to be foolish enough to use a phone number as an authentication token, so most people are accepting of the concept of giving that phone number.  It's already considered public information.  If the SSN was used in a similar manner consistently, most of the issues around it would disappear.  It wouldn't be wonderful for privacy, but neither is address, name and date, information one is generally already giving them, unless one chooses to take fairly active steps to avoid such.  (Use PO Boxes, not buy via credit card or check, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is rapidly changing .
A certain large employer forced their health insurance provider for employees to issue new ID cards to all members using alternative identification numbers a few years back.The problem is n't use of SSN .
It could be name/address/date ( full name , an address , and a date that one was at that address ) .
While longer , that 's also a specific identifier .
Anyone who ships to you will have at least address and a date automatically .
Getting a name is trivial from that point ( though it may be your roommate instead ) .The problem is use of SSN as combination identifier and authentication token .
Few seem to be foolish enough to use a phone number as an authentication token , so most people are accepting of the concept of giving that phone number .
It 's already considered public information .
If the SSN was used in a similar manner consistently , most of the issues around it would disappear .
It would n't be wonderful for privacy , but neither is address , name and date , information one is generally already giving them , unless one chooses to take fairly active steps to avoid such .
( Use PO Boxes , not buy via credit card or check , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is rapidly changing.
A certain large employer forced their health insurance provider for employees to issue new ID cards to all members using alternative identification numbers a few years back.The problem isn't use of SSN.
It could be name/address/date (full name, an address, and a date that one was at that address).
While longer, that's also a specific identifier.
Anyone who ships to you will have at least address and a date automatically.
Getting a name is trivial from that point (though it may be your roommate instead).The problem is use of SSN as combination identifier and authentication token.
Few seem to be foolish enough to use a phone number as an authentication token, so most people are accepting of the concept of giving that phone number.
It's already considered public information.
If the SSN was used in a similar manner consistently, most of the issues around it would disappear.
It wouldn't be wonderful for privacy, but neither is address, name and date, information one is generally already giving them, unless one chooses to take fairly active steps to avoid such.
(Use PO Boxes, not buy via credit card or check, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157018</id>
	<title>Are we over using 'war' and question headlines?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266344940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  Yes we are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Yes we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Yes we are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156848</id>
	<title>Medical needs it.</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1266344280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That medical firm didn't really need my SSN</p></div><p>Yeah, they did - unless they don't mind being paid. Trust me on this: your doctor couldn't give two whits less what ID# they use for you. The problem is that all government agencies and (to the best of my knowledge) all insurance companies use your SSN as a primary key, and unless the doctor collects the information, they're not getting paid beyond whatever you give them at the time of service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That medical firm did n't really need my SSNYeah , they did - unless they do n't mind being paid .
Trust me on this : your doctor could n't give two whits less what ID # they use for you .
The problem is that all government agencies and ( to the best of my knowledge ) all insurance companies use your SSN as a primary key , and unless the doctor collects the information , they 're not getting paid beyond whatever you give them at the time of service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That medical firm didn't really need my SSNYeah, they did - unless they don't mind being paid.
Trust me on this: your doctor couldn't give two whits less what ID# they use for you.
The problem is that all government agencies and (to the best of my knowledge) all insurance companies use your SSN as a primary key, and unless the doctor collects the information, they're not getting paid beyond whatever you give them at the time of service.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks. Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media, TV shows, movies or otherwise. The submitter has sold privacy for convenience. Convenience of mere entertainment no less. Privacy is not getting taken away, we are giving it up freely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks .
Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media , TV shows , movies or otherwise .
The submitter has sold privacy for convenience .
Convenience of mere entertainment no less .
Privacy is not getting taken away , we are giving it up freely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks.
Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media, TV shows, movies or otherwise.
The submitter has sold privacy for convenience.
Convenience of mere entertainment no less.
Privacy is not getting taken away, we are giving it up freely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161224</id>
	<title>Re:Losing the war..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Privacy is dead</p></div><p>The rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is deadThe rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is deadThe rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156996</id>
	<title>Re:Accept and enjoy!</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1266344880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I never understood why people didn't want to be catalogued.  I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went, everyone knew what I wanted.</p><p>That can't *possibly* be a bad thing!</p></div><p>"Economic automation is complete. Our research will now encompass other frontiers. Yes, this is the consensus we have created. Our unity will soon be absolute. The remaining boundaries are vanishing. Yes, share your mind with everyone. Open yourself. Your needs are the needs of all. Let us understand and be transformed. Yes. Transform each other and transform yourselves."</p><p>

Yeah, the Helios ending from DX2 rather scared the crap out of me. Like Borg 1.0. Yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood why people did n't want to be catalogued .
I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went , everyone knew what I wanted.That ca n't * possibly * be a bad thing !
" Economic automation is complete .
Our research will now encompass other frontiers .
Yes , this is the consensus we have created .
Our unity will soon be absolute .
The remaining boundaries are vanishing .
Yes , share your mind with everyone .
Open yourself .
Your needs are the needs of all .
Let us understand and be transformed .
Yes. Transform each other and transform yourselves .
" Yeah , the Helios ending from DX2 rather scared the crap out of me .
Like Borg 1.0 .
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood why people didn't want to be catalogued.
I think life would be lovely if everywhere I went, everyone knew what I wanted.That can't *possibly* be a bad thing!
"Economic automation is complete.
Our research will now encompass other frontiers.
Yes, this is the consensus we have created.
Our unity will soon be absolute.
The remaining boundaries are vanishing.
Yes, share your mind with everyone.
Open yourself.
Your needs are the needs of all.
Let us understand and be transformed.
Yes. Transform each other and transform yourselves.
"

Yeah, the Helios ending from DX2 rather scared the crap out of me.
Like Borg 1.0.
Yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158328</id>
	<title>Re:There was a war?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Damn...If it wasn't so private maybe I'd have heard about it and fought...</p></div><p>Is there a "war" we <i>haven't</i> lost lately? We lost the War on Freedom when the terrorists got a standing army posted in all the airports checking all the shampoo bottles for size and taking fingerprints. We lost the War on Human Dignity when it became routine to have one's shoes and underwear snooped in order to travel. We lost the War on Peace of Mind when it became impossible to know if your name didn't match any one of countless badly-kept lists. We lost the War on Accountability when the telco's were given immunity from prosecution when then handed over data to government agencies who didn't have proper authoritzation. We lost the War on Moral Superiority when we stooped to using the same barbaric tactics that we derided our enemies for using. We lost the War on Rule of Law when terrorists stopped being criminals and became Enemy Combatants in an army that exists more as an attitude than an actual country we could invade, bomb the hell out of, and exchange prisoners with.</p><p>We lost the War on Innocence when we started routinely prosecuting murderous children as adult murderers, and others as sexual predators for sending pictures over their cellphones. We lost the War on Common Sense when we started sending kids off to jail for sharing aspirin tablets and bringing miniature toy weapons to school. We lost the War on Civility when political discourse degenerated into win-at-all-costs partisan battles fought on the air and in the houses of government where opponents are demonized and the faults of "our team" were defended against all reason. We lost the War on Political Solutions when gridlock became the norm and it was no longer acceptable to repair bad laws over time instead of blocking all legislation - good, bad, and indifferent - at the source. We lost the War on Intelligence when education became standardized tests, scientists were expected to promote or refrain from hindering political agendas and it was more important to be able to "have a beer" with leaders than that they should have enough intellect to lead wisely.</p><p>You name it, we lost it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn...If it was n't so private maybe I 'd have heard about it and fought...Is there a " war " we have n't lost lately ?
We lost the War on Freedom when the terrorists got a standing army posted in all the airports checking all the shampoo bottles for size and taking fingerprints .
We lost the War on Human Dignity when it became routine to have one 's shoes and underwear snooped in order to travel .
We lost the War on Peace of Mind when it became impossible to know if your name did n't match any one of countless badly-kept lists .
We lost the War on Accountability when the telco 's were given immunity from prosecution when then handed over data to government agencies who did n't have proper authoritzation .
We lost the War on Moral Superiority when we stooped to using the same barbaric tactics that we derided our enemies for using .
We lost the War on Rule of Law when terrorists stopped being criminals and became Enemy Combatants in an army that exists more as an attitude than an actual country we could invade , bomb the hell out of , and exchange prisoners with.We lost the War on Innocence when we started routinely prosecuting murderous children as adult murderers , and others as sexual predators for sending pictures over their cellphones .
We lost the War on Common Sense when we started sending kids off to jail for sharing aspirin tablets and bringing miniature toy weapons to school .
We lost the War on Civility when political discourse degenerated into win-at-all-costs partisan battles fought on the air and in the houses of government where opponents are demonized and the faults of " our team " were defended against all reason .
We lost the War on Political Solutions when gridlock became the norm and it was no longer acceptable to repair bad laws over time instead of blocking all legislation - good , bad , and indifferent - at the source .
We lost the War on Intelligence when education became standardized tests , scientists were expected to promote or refrain from hindering political agendas and it was more important to be able to " have a beer " with leaders than that they should have enough intellect to lead wisely.You name it , we lost it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn...If it wasn't so private maybe I'd have heard about it and fought...Is there a "war" we haven't lost lately?
We lost the War on Freedom when the terrorists got a standing army posted in all the airports checking all the shampoo bottles for size and taking fingerprints.
We lost the War on Human Dignity when it became routine to have one's shoes and underwear snooped in order to travel.
We lost the War on Peace of Mind when it became impossible to know if your name didn't match any one of countless badly-kept lists.
We lost the War on Accountability when the telco's were given immunity from prosecution when then handed over data to government agencies who didn't have proper authoritzation.
We lost the War on Moral Superiority when we stooped to using the same barbaric tactics that we derided our enemies for using.
We lost the War on Rule of Law when terrorists stopped being criminals and became Enemy Combatants in an army that exists more as an attitude than an actual country we could invade, bomb the hell out of, and exchange prisoners with.We lost the War on Innocence when we started routinely prosecuting murderous children as adult murderers, and others as sexual predators for sending pictures over their cellphones.
We lost the War on Common Sense when we started sending kids off to jail for sharing aspirin tablets and bringing miniature toy weapons to school.
We lost the War on Civility when political discourse degenerated into win-at-all-costs partisan battles fought on the air and in the houses of government where opponents are demonized and the faults of "our team" were defended against all reason.
We lost the War on Political Solutions when gridlock became the norm and it was no longer acceptable to repair bad laws over time instead of blocking all legislation - good, bad, and indifferent - at the source.
We lost the War on Intelligence when education became standardized tests, scientists were expected to promote or refrain from hindering political agendas and it was more important to be able to "have a beer" with leaders than that they should have enough intellect to lead wisely.You name it, we lost it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156670</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are agreeing to give up your privacy. You are not losing - you surrendered.</p></div><p>I don't think this is the problem. The problem isn't that people are <i>using</i> systems that disregard privacy, the problem is that people are <i>designing</i> them. This is why the war on privacy is necessarily the war on open source: Open source software doesn't invade your privacy. Firefox lets you automatically delete cookies, Flash doesn't. Asterisk lets you control what your phone switch is recording about you, AT&amp;T doesn't. On and on.</p><p>So if you don't like how the world is going, build a different one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are agreeing to give up your privacy .
You are not losing - you surrendered.I do n't think this is the problem .
The problem is n't that people are using systems that disregard privacy , the problem is that people are designing them .
This is why the war on privacy is necessarily the war on open source : Open source software does n't invade your privacy .
Firefox lets you automatically delete cookies , Flash does n't .
Asterisk lets you control what your phone switch is recording about you , AT&amp;T does n't .
On and on.So if you do n't like how the world is going , build a different one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are agreeing to give up your privacy.
You are not losing - you surrendered.I don't think this is the problem.
The problem isn't that people are using systems that disregard privacy, the problem is that people are designing them.
This is why the war on privacy is necessarily the war on open source: Open source software doesn't invade your privacy.
Firefox lets you automatically delete cookies, Flash doesn't.
Asterisk lets you control what your phone switch is recording about you, AT&amp;T doesn't.
On and on.So if you don't like how the world is going, build a different one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161394</id>
	<title>Re:Get !Prozac.</title>
	<author>Hazelfield</author>
	<datestamp>1266320100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dr. Jekyll? Is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dr. Jekyll ? Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dr. Jekyll? Is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157340</id>
	<title>Get your...</title>
	<author>the\_hellspawn</author>
	<datestamp>1266345900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>tinfoil hat on! I have been wearing mine now for some years and I feel that it has helped. I now only use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/ and still feel inadequate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>tinfoil hat on !
I have been wearing mine now for some years and I feel that it has helped .
I now only use /b/ and still feel inadequate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tinfoil hat on!
I have been wearing mine now for some years and I feel that it has helped.
I now only use /b/ and still feel inadequate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161248</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see nothing forbidding business entities or other citizens from requiring you to provide a SSN to qualify for services.  "Not allowed" is very misleading.  No, let me correct that, it's actually a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see nothing forbidding business entities or other citizens from requiring you to provide a SSN to qualify for services .
" Not allowed " is very misleading .
No , let me correct that , it 's actually a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see nothing forbidding business entities or other citizens from requiring you to provide a SSN to qualify for services.
"Not allowed" is very misleading.
No, let me correct that, it's actually a lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157600</id>
	<title>re  ssn's wasRe:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1266346920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed in the UK unless your one of very few organisations you are not ment/allowed to use NI numbers to identify individuals - i seem to recall this as part of BT's data standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed in the UK unless your one of very few organisations you are not ment/allowed to use NI numbers to identify individuals - i seem to recall this as part of BT 's data standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed in the UK unless your one of very few organisations you are not ment/allowed to use NI numbers to identify individuals - i seem to recall this as part of BT's data standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156532</id>
	<title>Yes you can win  the privacy war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Services like U-Verse will monitor everything you do. use alternate services.</p><p>The idea privacy is dead is nonsense - as for face-book its next to impossible to tell if the data stored is genuine or not.</p><p>In terms of companies demanding your SSN: well there is nothing you can do about that, but you can limit its effects with lifestyle changes including:</p><p>- Discuise your finantial activities by not using your credit card,<br>- I'm fairly sure you can request the destruction of your medical records - and keep a copy yourself (don't quote me on this)</p><p>By adopting habbits like that, even having your SSN would give no more personal information about you than your address and place of work - which even the post office knows.</p><p>There are lots of other things you can do - but point is its entirely possible to lead a completely private life - its just not very convenient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Services like U-Verse will monitor everything you do .
use alternate services.The idea privacy is dead is nonsense - as for face-book its next to impossible to tell if the data stored is genuine or not.In terms of companies demanding your SSN : well there is nothing you can do about that , but you can limit its effects with lifestyle changes including : - Discuise your finantial activities by not using your credit card,- I 'm fairly sure you can request the destruction of your medical records - and keep a copy yourself ( do n't quote me on this ) By adopting habbits like that , even having your SSN would give no more personal information about you than your address and place of work - which even the post office knows.There are lots of other things you can do - but point is its entirely possible to lead a completely private life - its just not very convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Services like U-Verse will monitor everything you do.
use alternate services.The idea privacy is dead is nonsense - as for face-book its next to impossible to tell if the data stored is genuine or not.In terms of companies demanding your SSN: well there is nothing you can do about that, but you can limit its effects with lifestyle changes including:- Discuise your finantial activities by not using your credit card,- I'm fairly sure you can request the destruction of your medical records - and keep a copy yourself (don't quote me on this)By adopting habbits like that, even having your SSN would give no more personal information about you than your address and place of work - which even the post office knows.There are lots of other things you can do - but point is its entirely possible to lead a completely private life - its just not very convenient.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156364</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1266342660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're worried that people might know what TV channels you're watching?  Why?  I don't think that was a problem which the people originally started worrying about what people knew about them were concerned with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're worried that people might know what TV channels you 're watching ?
Why ? I do n't think that was a problem which the people originally started worrying about what people knew about them were concerned with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're worried that people might know what TV channels you're watching?
Why?  I don't think that was a problem which the people originally started worrying about what people knew about them were concerned with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158922</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1266352020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I always thought you looked more like a #3627482.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I always thought you looked more like a # 3627482 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I always thought you looked more like a #3627482.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163604</id>
	<title>Fight the good fight!</title>
	<author>Predictor</author>
	<datestamp>1266333360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is difficult to battle this problem when so many others don't seem to understand or care about it, but I say: Fight the good fight!

I disagree with your use of the term "data mining", though.  "Data mining" is a sophisticated statistical analysis of data (see, for instance: <a href="http://matlabdatamining.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://matlabdatamining.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]), whereas what I think you're talking about is "data snooping" or "data theft".</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is difficult to battle this problem when so many others do n't seem to understand or care about it , but I say : Fight the good fight !
I disagree with your use of the term " data mining " , though .
" Data mining " is a sophisticated statistical analysis of data ( see , for instance : http : //matlabdatamining.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] ) , whereas what I think you 're talking about is " data snooping " or " data theft " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is difficult to battle this problem when so many others don't seem to understand or care about it, but I say: Fight the good fight!
I disagree with your use of the term "data mining", though.
"Data mining" is a sophisticated statistical analysis of data (see, for instance: http://matlabdatamining.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]), whereas what I think you're talking about is "data snooping" or "data theft".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1266346680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is misunderstood a lot.  Companies are not allowed to require your SSN for service.  They often ask for it, just to be able to track you down if you fail to pay.  (alert: USA-centric info follows).  The loophole is, most companies are not required to offer service to everyone.  So they can refuse to provide service to you without explanation (usually "incomplete application" or something similar), while technically following the law.  That's why there's usually no state (or fed) regulation which allows this behaviour specifically.</p><p>Semi-related: I recently applied for a membership at Hollywood Video, when I lived 100 feet away from the store.  They wouldn't give me a membership without a phone number, because they couldn't call me and tell me my movies were late.  I told them it would be more convenient for me to rent there than somewhere else, but if they felt that driving 100 feet to get their movies back was a hardship, I'd take my business somewhere else.  It's not required to have a phone number, but since my application was not complete I was denied.</p><p>The only workaround is as you said, contact someone and complain.  More people need to do this.  There are several companies which ask for my SSN and I level-set, look them directly in the eye, and say "You are not an agent of the Social Security administration, therefore you are not allowed to ask for that."  They pause for a bit, say "uhhh, ok, I'll just leave that blank," and continue.  By stating it that way, there is no question that I know my rights under the law, and they usually aren't prepared to fight it because they don't know the relevant law, being the front-line grunts just following orders.  It amuses me.</p><p>Of course, recent IRS and anti-terrorism laws have changed this slightly, but it's still a small portion of companies.</p><p><a href="http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10a-SSNFAQ.htm" title="privacyrights.org">http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10a-SSNFAQ.htm</a> [privacyrights.org]<br><a href="http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs31-CIP.htm" title="privacyrights.org">http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs31-CIP.htm</a> [privacyrights.org]</p><p>Partial list of who might legitimately be required to retain SSN:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Commercial banks.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Agencies and branches of foreign banks in the United States.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Thrifts (savings and loan institutions).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Credit unions.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Private banks.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Trust companies.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Investment companies.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Brokers and dealers in securities.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Futures commission merchants.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Insurance companies.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Travel agents.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Pawnbrokers.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Dealers in precious metals.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Check cashers.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Casinos.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Telegraph companies.</p><p>As always, know your rights.  In my opinion, casinos require SSNs for tax enforcement under the guise of covering money laundering.  Telegraph companies?  Maybe "money by wire" makes sense for tracking financial terrorist support, but if I'm sending a telegraph, they are allowed to ask for my SSN for no apparent reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is misunderstood a lot .
Companies are not allowed to require your SSN for service .
They often ask for it , just to be able to track you down if you fail to pay .
( alert : USA-centric info follows ) .
The loophole is , most companies are not required to offer service to everyone .
So they can refuse to provide service to you without explanation ( usually " incomplete application " or something similar ) , while technically following the law .
That 's why there 's usually no state ( or fed ) regulation which allows this behaviour specifically.Semi-related : I recently applied for a membership at Hollywood Video , when I lived 100 feet away from the store .
They would n't give me a membership without a phone number , because they could n't call me and tell me my movies were late .
I told them it would be more convenient for me to rent there than somewhere else , but if they felt that driving 100 feet to get their movies back was a hardship , I 'd take my business somewhere else .
It 's not required to have a phone number , but since my application was not complete I was denied.The only workaround is as you said , contact someone and complain .
More people need to do this .
There are several companies which ask for my SSN and I level-set , look them directly in the eye , and say " You are not an agent of the Social Security administration , therefore you are not allowed to ask for that .
" They pause for a bit , say " uhhh , ok , I 'll just leave that blank , " and continue .
By stating it that way , there is no question that I know my rights under the law , and they usually are n't prepared to fight it because they do n't know the relevant law , being the front-line grunts just following orders .
It amuses me.Of course , recent IRS and anti-terrorism laws have changed this slightly , but it 's still a small portion of companies.http : //www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10a-SSNFAQ.htm [ privacyrights.org ] http : //www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs31-CIP.htm [ privacyrights.org ] Partial list of who might legitimately be required to retain SSN :         * Commercial banks .
        * Agencies and branches of foreign banks in the United States .
        * Thrifts ( savings and loan institutions ) .
        * Credit unions .
        * Private banks .
        * Trust companies .
        * Investment companies .
        * Brokers and dealers in securities .
        * Futures commission merchants .
        * Insurance companies .
        * Travel agents .
        * Pawnbrokers .
        * Dealers in precious metals .
        * Check cashers .
        * Casinos .
        * Telegraph companies.As always , know your rights .
In my opinion , casinos require SSNs for tax enforcement under the guise of covering money laundering .
Telegraph companies ?
Maybe " money by wire " makes sense for tracking financial terrorist support , but if I 'm sending a telegraph , they are allowed to ask for my SSN for no apparent reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is misunderstood a lot.
Companies are not allowed to require your SSN for service.
They often ask for it, just to be able to track you down if you fail to pay.
(alert: USA-centric info follows).
The loophole is, most companies are not required to offer service to everyone.
So they can refuse to provide service to you without explanation (usually "incomplete application" or something similar), while technically following the law.
That's why there's usually no state (or fed) regulation which allows this behaviour specifically.Semi-related: I recently applied for a membership at Hollywood Video, when I lived 100 feet away from the store.
They wouldn't give me a membership without a phone number, because they couldn't call me and tell me my movies were late.
I told them it would be more convenient for me to rent there than somewhere else, but if they felt that driving 100 feet to get their movies back was a hardship, I'd take my business somewhere else.
It's not required to have a phone number, but since my application was not complete I was denied.The only workaround is as you said, contact someone and complain.
More people need to do this.
There are several companies which ask for my SSN and I level-set, look them directly in the eye, and say "You are not an agent of the Social Security administration, therefore you are not allowed to ask for that.
"  They pause for a bit, say "uhhh, ok, I'll just leave that blank," and continue.
By stating it that way, there is no question that I know my rights under the law, and they usually aren't prepared to fight it because they don't know the relevant law, being the front-line grunts just following orders.
It amuses me.Of course, recent IRS and anti-terrorism laws have changed this slightly, but it's still a small portion of companies.http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10a-SSNFAQ.htm [privacyrights.org]http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs31-CIP.htm [privacyrights.org]Partial list of who might legitimately be required to retain SSN:
        * Commercial banks.
        * Agencies and branches of foreign banks in the United States.
        * Thrifts (savings and loan institutions).
        * Credit unions.
        * Private banks.
        * Trust companies.
        * Investment companies.
        * Brokers and dealers in securities.
        * Futures commission merchants.
        * Insurance companies.
        * Travel agents.
        * Pawnbrokers.
        * Dealers in precious metals.
        * Check cashers.
        * Casinos.
        * Telegraph companies.As always, know your rights.
In my opinion, casinos require SSNs for tax enforcement under the guise of covering money laundering.
Telegraph companies?
Maybe "money by wire" makes sense for tracking financial terrorist support, but if I'm sending a telegraph, they are allowed to ask for my SSN for no apparent reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159222</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1266353340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  It seems like every week or so I hear someone declaring privacy to be dead.  Privacy can't die, if it did then everyone would know everything about you, which is impossible.  But repeatedly chanting "privacy is dead" serves to weaken resistance to further erosion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It seems like every week or so I hear someone declaring privacy to be dead .
Privacy ca n't die , if it did then everyone would know everything about you , which is impossible .
But repeatedly chanting " privacy is dead " serves to weaken resistance to further erosion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It seems like every week or so I hear someone declaring privacy to be dead.
Privacy can't die, if it did then everyone would know everything about you, which is impossible.
But repeatedly chanting "privacy is dead" serves to weaken resistance to further erosion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157102</id>
	<title>Re:You aren't fighting properly</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1266345180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is some law regarding that information only be required to do credit checks</p></div><p>
This is actually completely incorrect.  There are laws in Canada stating that a bank / cc company cannot refuse you service if you refuse to give your SIN.  If they ever tell you they absolutely require it (not just "it'd be nice, please sir, give us your SIN"), you can sue for quite a nice sum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is some law regarding that information only be required to do credit checks This is actually completely incorrect .
There are laws in Canada stating that a bank / cc company can not refuse you service if you refuse to give your SIN .
If they ever tell you they absolutely require it ( not just " it 'd be nice , please sir , give us your SIN " ) , you can sue for quite a nice sum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is some law regarding that information only be required to do credit checks
This is actually completely incorrect.
There are laws in Canada stating that a bank / cc company cannot refuse you service if you refuse to give your SIN.
If they ever tell you they absolutely require it (not just "it'd be nice, please sir, give us your SIN"), you can sue for quite a nice sum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163520</id>
	<title>Data Rape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266332640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years. I've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics, disabling third-party cookies, encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay. Recently, I've been feeling like I'm just doing too much and still losing! No matter what I do, I know that there's a weak link somewhere, be it my ISP, Flash cookies, etc.</p> </div><p>Heh, Adblock and NoScript are musts for me too, but I also forge all referrers to be the root of the site I am surfing (no need for sites to know how I found them). I reject all cookies, and for sites that need cookies I allow them for session only. I send my web searches through TOR (though Google block a lot of TOR exit nodes, so Scroogle SSL via TOR is needed most of the time). I don't have Flash installed, and find that not to be a problem. There are methods for downloading videos and music obscured by flash anyway, and once you've seen 1 flash game, you've seen them all. Or if you ever used an 8-bit computer, you have played games better than anything a flash developer will churn out.</p><p>I turn off all auto-update checking in applications, and do not install applications that phone home. (Spyware has been totally legitimised through claiming to check for updates, and things that would never have been acceptable 10 years ago are common place these days).</p><p>I rarely give websites real data any more. If I want to make a post on a site, I will sign up a throw away account - email provided by mailinator.com, the username is a munge of the keyboard, and the password is password. If someone gets into the account and starts shitting all over the site, well, if webmasters didn't try and violate privacy at every turn maybe they would be treated with respect. (Cue the whingeing bloggers, who claim not to violate user privacy, whilst at the same time having the likes of Google Analytics on their Wordpress hosted blog).</p><p>And if a site wants an email address, but doesn't verify the address, I use postmaster@<i>site.tld</i>.</p><p>I urge others to do the same. If you care about privacy, or just don't care about corporations, fucking with their data is probably the best attack. Make things uneconomical, and the practices stop.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes. I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.</p></div><p>It's things like this where you need to either stop being a brainless consumer, or purposefully poison their data.</p><p>I know it fucking sucks that these companies offer their way, or the highway, and that the barrier to entry to these industries is so high there is no way anyone (especially not a non-datarapist) can even try to think about becoming a competitor.</p><p>So fuck off the service where one company is the gatekeeper of all data that goes in and out of your house, and torrent the TV and films you are interested in (you don't think Netflix ignore the data they have on people?).</p><p>Or, if you really want to pay for adverts, fuck with their data. Operate a TOR exit node, and QOS it so it doesn't effect your 'net usage. You could run a web proxy on the exit too, that modifies all web browser fingerprints to match yours. I know your question says they monitor TV habits, but it won't be long before they are shamelessly monitoring internet usage too (though the likes of Google already are). It might be worth formally notifying your ISP (with a hand written letter) that you are going to be running a TOR exit node, and that if they get the government coming bitching then it is probably a TOR user. At least then you might have some recourse against your ISP if they just mindlessly hand over your name/address to the feds.</p><p>I haven't had cable TV for a long time now, but back when I did it did occur to me that the cable company could probably tell everything I did with their box and remote. It didn't have PVR functionality, but it did have an EPG, a reminder feature (a pop up reminder, and a change at start of programme feature), a TV on demand system, along with the usual things you get from cable TV (half a dozen OK channels, hundreds of shite).</p><p>The cable company would know when I turn the box on and off. They would know which channels I watch most frequently, and with some analysis of data could probably determine which programmes I like (more than just from the reminders that get set). All they need to do is look for patterns of channel hopping, and when that stops, the person has probably stopped on a programme (or advert) they like the looks of.</p><p>I did think about making a device that would randomly change channel, and may well do so in the future.... well, if I ever subscribe to a TV service again, which is unlikely. I realised years ago that paying for TV with adverts is a stupid thing to do. As they aren't willing to provide what I am willing to pay for, they have lost me as a customer. So I download anything I want to watch, and it is no loss to them, and I don't just spend most evenings in front of the TV any more, looking for something that's worth watching..... but probably doesn't exist.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I just can't take this anymore. I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do. I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe. One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places. Case in point: I changed my life insurance two years ago, and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients' data were stolen. That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse.</p></div><p>I think that if you are a victim of data loss, and you accept what they offer (a years credit rating monitoring, usually), then you waive any further right to sue. It is probably best to at least write back, tell them bollocks, and that you want real compensation. If they are willing to offer something straight away, then they will be willing to increase that offer.</p><p>Of course, it also shows how you should only give the utter minimum data you can to corporations, and strike though any unpleasant terms on the contract, like "by using this service, you agree to accept whatever we offer you in the case of data loss". The non-reading of contracts is pretty universal: customers don't do it, and nor do the people at the bottom of a corporation who provide you with a service.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I just too paranoid?</p></div><p>No. They want to find out about you to manipulate you into handing over money. The film The Corporation demonstrates the parallels between a corporation and a psychopathic human. You wouldn't do business with, or trust, a psychopath, so why trust corporations?</p><p>Same goes for government, of course. Well, any powerful entity. There seem to be many slashdotters who are foamingly anti-government, but perfectly happy with what a private corporation (who may well employ more people than are in the government of a small country) might try to get up to. Any powerful body needs to be treated carefully.... their power is usually based on the lack of power of the little guy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Is privacy dead?</p></div><p>That phrase only comes out of the mouths of people who stand to profit from violating privacy (and their fan boys). Farcebook's business is based on people giving up info about themselves in exchange for access to the FB playground. Google need people to identify themselves so they can correlate essentially anonymous web users with real human beings. Oracle benefit by selling fancy database systems to power the likes of Facebook, Google, and state privacy violations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore (like Facebook's founder recently said) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?"</p></div><p>No need to fight. Just don't use the services of datarapists (or do, and lie to them), and don't listen to the people who can't understand that the world will carry on even if you don't have a credit card, or only turn your mobile phone on in emergencies, or don't use facebook, etc.. Their attitude is simply learnt from the TV (or similar) anyway.</p><p>Consumer society requires increasing numbers of people to be consumers, and consumers are not only conditioned to go to corporations for all their wants/needs, but are conditioned to treat non-consumers as some kind of backward, social-luddite! Hence the numbers of posts in this discussion that pretty much attack you, or simply parrot exactly what the likes of Google need people to do for them to be profitable.</p><p>The Trap, mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, is essential viewing for understanding advertising, PR, modern industry, and politics.</p><p>If the US government will go as far a wire tapping everyone, it would be naive to think governments wouldn't be profiling internet users too. People's writing styles are fingerprintable through things like topics of writing, grammar habits or mistakes, spelling habits or mistakes. People use the same or similar usernames across various sites, or their usernames follow patterns, e.g. <i>PredatoryAnimalNumber</i>. Even with random usernames, people sign up for things with the same email addresses, enter the same ICQ number/AIM username on every forum they sign up to, etc.. The NSA/CIA/Mossad/MI5.... will be well aware of how people behave on line, and how they create and use personae. Hell, the CIA are a financial backer of Facebook through <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/In-Q-Tel" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">In-Q-Tel</a> [wikimedia.org], and their money will have bought incredible access to how people behave in groups, and how social groups releate, etc.. All sorts of things most people don't even know exist, and so will laugh at you if you express concern about these issues.</p><p>Sooner or later, data from widespread profiling will be cross referenced with the stuff industry hoovers up, either through the government becoming more Orwellian, or the government looking to shore up its budgets, so sells its data to industry.</p><p>Right, that's this rant over. If I fix it so it reads better it'll be more like my writing, and the Man will know who I am!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years .
I 've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics , disabling third-party cookies , encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay .
Recently , I 've been feeling like I 'm just doing too much and still losing !
No matter what I do , I know that there 's a weak link somewhere , be it my ISP , Flash cookies , etc .
Heh , Adblock and NoScript are musts for me too , but I also forge all referrers to be the root of the site I am surfing ( no need for sites to know how I found them ) .
I reject all cookies , and for sites that need cookies I allow them for session only .
I send my web searches through TOR ( though Google block a lot of TOR exit nodes , so Scroogle SSL via TOR is needed most of the time ) .
I do n't have Flash installed , and find that not to be a problem .
There are methods for downloading videos and music obscured by flash anyway , and once you 've seen 1 flash game , you 've seen them all .
Or if you ever used an 8-bit computer , you have played games better than anything a flash developer will churn out.I turn off all auto-update checking in applications , and do not install applications that phone home .
( Spyware has been totally legitimised through claiming to check for updates , and things that would never have been acceptable 10 years ago are common place these days ) .I rarely give websites real data any more .
If I want to make a post on a site , I will sign up a throw away account - email provided by mailinator.com , the username is a munge of the keyboard , and the password is password .
If someone gets into the account and starts shitting all over the site , well , if webmasters did n't try and violate privacy at every turn maybe they would be treated with respect .
( Cue the whingeing bloggers , who claim not to violate user privacy , whilst at the same time having the likes of Google Analytics on their Wordpress hosted blog ) .And if a site wants an email address , but does n't verify the address , I use postmaster @ site.tld.I urge others to do the same .
If you care about privacy , or just do n't care about corporations , fucking with their data is probably the best attack .
Make things uneconomical , and the practices stop.I 've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse , who , according to their privacy statement , will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes .
I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it.It 's things like this where you need to either stop being a brainless consumer , or purposefully poison their data.I know it fucking sucks that these companies offer their way , or the highway , and that the barrier to entry to these industries is so high there is no way anyone ( especially not a non-datarapist ) can even try to think about becoming a competitor.So fuck off the service where one company is the gatekeeper of all data that goes in and out of your house , and torrent the TV and films you are interested in ( you do n't think Netflix ignore the data they have on people ?
) .Or , if you really want to pay for adverts , fuck with their data .
Operate a TOR exit node , and QOS it so it does n't effect your 'net usage .
You could run a web proxy on the exit too , that modifies all web browser fingerprints to match yours .
I know your question says they monitor TV habits , but it wo n't be long before they are shamelessly monitoring internet usage too ( though the likes of Google already are ) .
It might be worth formally notifying your ISP ( with a hand written letter ) that you are going to be running a TOR exit node , and that if they get the government coming bitching then it is probably a TOR user .
At least then you might have some recourse against your ISP if they just mindlessly hand over your name/address to the feds.I have n't had cable TV for a long time now , but back when I did it did occur to me that the cable company could probably tell everything I did with their box and remote .
It did n't have PVR functionality , but it did have an EPG , a reminder feature ( a pop up reminder , and a change at start of programme feature ) , a TV on demand system , along with the usual things you get from cable TV ( half a dozen OK channels , hundreds of shite ) .The cable company would know when I turn the box on and off .
They would know which channels I watch most frequently , and with some analysis of data could probably determine which programmes I like ( more than just from the reminders that get set ) .
All they need to do is look for patterns of channel hopping , and when that stops , the person has probably stopped on a programme ( or advert ) they like the looks of.I did think about making a device that would randomly change channel , and may well do so in the future.... well , if I ever subscribe to a TV service again , which is unlikely .
I realised years ago that paying for TV with adverts is a stupid thing to do .
As they are n't willing to provide what I am willing to pay for , they have lost me as a customer .
So I download anything I want to watch , and it is no loss to them , and I do n't just spend most evenings in front of the TV any more , looking for something that 's worth watching..... but probably does n't exist.I just ca n't take this anymore .
I have nothing to hide , but I do not want to be profiled and become member # 5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do .
I know I 'm not that interesting to anyone , but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe .
One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places .
Case in point : I changed my life insurance two years ago , and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients ' data were stolen .
That medical firm did n't really need my SSN , but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse.I think that if you are a victim of data loss , and you accept what they offer ( a years credit rating monitoring , usually ) , then you waive any further right to sue .
It is probably best to at least write back , tell them bollocks , and that you want real compensation .
If they are willing to offer something straight away , then they will be willing to increase that offer.Of course , it also shows how you should only give the utter minimum data you can to corporations , and strike though any unpleasant terms on the contract , like " by using this service , you agree to accept whatever we offer you in the case of data loss " .
The non-reading of contracts is pretty universal : customers do n't do it , and nor do the people at the bottom of a corporation who provide you with a service.Am I just too paranoid ? No .
They want to find out about you to manipulate you into handing over money .
The film The Corporation demonstrates the parallels between a corporation and a psychopathic human .
You would n't do business with , or trust , a psychopath , so why trust corporations ? Same goes for government , of course .
Well , any powerful entity .
There seem to be many slashdotters who are foamingly anti-government , but perfectly happy with what a private corporation ( who may well employ more people than are in the government of a small country ) might try to get up to .
Any powerful body needs to be treated carefully.... their power is usually based on the lack of power of the little guy.Is privacy dead ? That phrase only comes out of the mouths of people who stand to profit from violating privacy ( and their fan boys ) .
Farcebook 's business is based on people giving up info about themselves in exchange for access to the FB playground .
Google need people to identify themselves so they can correlate essentially anonymous web users with real human beings .
Oracle benefit by selling fancy database systems to power the likes of Facebook , Google , and state privacy violations.Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore ( like Facebook 's founder recently said ) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy ?
" No need to fight .
Just do n't use the services of datarapists ( or do , and lie to them ) , and do n't listen to the people who ca n't understand that the world will carry on even if you do n't have a credit card , or only turn your mobile phone on in emergencies , or do n't use facebook , etc.. Their attitude is simply learnt from the TV ( or similar ) anyway.Consumer society requires increasing numbers of people to be consumers , and consumers are not only conditioned to go to corporations for all their wants/needs , but are conditioned to treat non-consumers as some kind of backward , social-luddite !
Hence the numbers of posts in this discussion that pretty much attack you , or simply parrot exactly what the likes of Google need people to do for them to be profitable.The Trap , mentioned elsewhere in this discussion , is essential viewing for understanding advertising , PR , modern industry , and politics.If the US government will go as far a wire tapping everyone , it would be naive to think governments would n't be profiling internet users too .
People 's writing styles are fingerprintable through things like topics of writing , grammar habits or mistakes , spelling habits or mistakes .
People use the same or similar usernames across various sites , or their usernames follow patterns , e.g .
PredatoryAnimalNumber. Even with random usernames , people sign up for things with the same email addresses , enter the same ICQ number/AIM username on every forum they sign up to , etc.. The NSA/CIA/Mossad/MI5.... will be well aware of how people behave on line , and how they create and use personae .
Hell , the CIA are a financial backer of Facebook through In-Q-Tel [ wikimedia.org ] , and their money will have bought incredible access to how people behave in groups , and how social groups releate , etc.. All sorts of things most people do n't even know exist , and so will laugh at you if you express concern about these issues.Sooner or later , data from widespread profiling will be cross referenced with the stuff industry hoovers up , either through the government becoming more Orwellian , or the government looking to shore up its budgets , so sells its data to industry.Right , that 's this rant over .
If I fix it so it reads better it 'll be more like my writing , and the Man will know who I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've been a fanatic about my online privacy for the last few years.
I've been using NoScript and blocking Google Analytics, disabling third-party cookies, encrypting IM and doing everything in my power to keep data-miners at bay.
Recently, I've been feeling like I'm just doing too much and still losing!
No matter what I do, I know that there's a weak link somewhere, be it my ISP, Flash cookies, etc.
Heh, Adblock and NoScript are musts for me too, but I also forge all referrers to be the root of the site I am surfing (no need for sites to know how I found them).
I reject all cookies, and for sites that need cookies I allow them for session only.
I send my web searches through TOR (though Google block a lot of TOR exit nodes, so Scroogle SSL via TOR is needed most of the time).
I don't have Flash installed, and find that not to be a problem.
There are methods for downloading videos and music obscured by flash anyway, and once you've seen 1 flash game, you've seen them all.
Or if you ever used an 8-bit computer, you have played games better than anything a flash developer will churn out.I turn off all auto-update checking in applications, and do not install applications that phone home.
(Spyware has been totally legitimised through claiming to check for updates, and things that would never have been acceptable 10 years ago are common place these days).I rarely give websites real data any more.
If I want to make a post on a site, I will sign up a throw away account - email provided by mailinator.com, the username is a munge of the keyboard, and the password is password.
If someone gets into the account and starts shitting all over the site, well, if webmasters didn't try and violate privacy at every turn maybe they would be treated with respect.
(Cue the whingeing bloggers, who claim not to violate user privacy, whilst at the same time having the likes of Google Analytics on their Wordpress hosted blog).And if a site wants an email address, but doesn't verify the address, I use postmaster@site.tld.I urge others to do the same.
If you care about privacy, or just don't care about corporations, fucking with their data is probably the best attack.
Make things uneconomical, and the practices stop.I've recently gotten AT&amp;T U-Verse, who, according to their privacy statement, will be monitoring my TV watching habits for advertisement purposes.
I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.It's things like this where you need to either stop being a brainless consumer, or purposefully poison their data.I know it fucking sucks that these companies offer their way, or the highway, and that the barrier to entry to these industries is so high there is no way anyone (especially not a non-datarapist) can even try to think about becoming a competitor.So fuck off the service where one company is the gatekeeper of all data that goes in and out of your house, and torrent the TV and films you are interested in (you don't think Netflix ignore the data they have on people?
).Or, if you really want to pay for adverts, fuck with their data.
Operate a TOR exit node, and QOS it so it doesn't effect your 'net usage.
You could run a web proxy on the exit too, that modifies all web browser fingerprints to match yours.
I know your question says they monitor TV habits, but it won't be long before they are shamelessly monitoring internet usage too (though the likes of Google already are).
It might be worth formally notifying your ISP (with a hand written letter) that you are going to be running a TOR exit node, and that if they get the government coming bitching then it is probably a TOR user.
At least then you might have some recourse against your ISP if they just mindlessly hand over your name/address to the feds.I haven't had cable TV for a long time now, but back when I did it did occur to me that the cable company could probably tell everything I did with their box and remote.
It didn't have PVR functionality, but it did have an EPG, a reminder feature (a pop up reminder, and a change at start of programme feature), a TV on demand system, along with the usual things you get from cable TV (half a dozen OK channels, hundreds of shite).The cable company would know when I turn the box on and off.
They would know which channels I watch most frequently, and with some analysis of data could probably determine which programmes I like (more than just from the reminders that get set).
All they need to do is look for patterns of channel hopping, and when that stops, the person has probably stopped on a programme (or advert) they like the looks of.I did think about making a device that would randomly change channel, and may well do so in the future.... well, if I ever subscribe to a TV service again, which is unlikely.
I realised years ago that paying for TV with adverts is a stupid thing to do.
As they aren't willing to provide what I am willing to pay for, they have lost me as a customer.
So I download anything I want to watch, and it is no loss to them, and I don't just spend most evenings in front of the TV any more, looking for something that's worth watching..... but probably doesn't exist.I just can't take this anymore.
I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to be profiled and become member #5534289 in a database somewhere that records everything I do.
I know I'm not that interesting to anyone, but the idea of someone being able to pull up everything about me with a simple SQL SELECT statement and a couple of JOINS makes me cringe.
One of the reasons I hate data mining is that data security is not understood and almost non-existent at a lot of places.
Case in point: I changed my life insurance two years ago, and the medical firm that conducted my health screening was broken into and computers with non-encrypted hard drives and patients' data were stolen.
That medical firm didn't really need my SSN, but then again neither did AT&amp;T when I signed up for U-Verse.I think that if you are a victim of data loss, and you accept what they offer (a years credit rating monitoring, usually), then you waive any further right to sue.
It is probably best to at least write back, tell them bollocks, and that you want real compensation.
If they are willing to offer something straight away, then they will be willing to increase that offer.Of course, it also shows how you should only give the utter minimum data you can to corporations, and strike though any unpleasant terms on the contract, like "by using this service, you agree to accept whatever we offer you in the case of data loss".
The non-reading of contracts is pretty universal: customers don't do it, and nor do the people at the bottom of a corporation who provide you with a service.Am I just too paranoid?No.
They want to find out about you to manipulate you into handing over money.
The film The Corporation demonstrates the parallels between a corporation and a psychopathic human.
You wouldn't do business with, or trust, a psychopath, so why trust corporations?Same goes for government, of course.
Well, any powerful entity.
There seem to be many slashdotters who are foamingly anti-government, but perfectly happy with what a private corporation (who may well employ more people than are in the government of a small country) might try to get up to.
Any powerful body needs to be treated carefully.... their power is usually based on the lack of power of the little guy.Is privacy dead?That phrase only comes out of the mouths of people who stand to profit from violating privacy (and their fan boys).
Farcebook's business is based on people giving up info about themselves in exchange for access to the FB playground.
Google need people to identify themselves so they can correlate essentially anonymous web users with real human beings.
Oracle benefit by selling fancy database systems to power the likes of Facebook, Google, and state privacy violations.Should I just give up and accept the fact that privacy is not the norm anymore (like Facebook's founder recently said) or should I keep fighting the good fight for my privacy?
"No need to fight.
Just don't use the services of datarapists (or do, and lie to them), and don't listen to the people who can't understand that the world will carry on even if you don't have a credit card, or only turn your mobile phone on in emergencies, or don't use facebook, etc.. Their attitude is simply learnt from the TV (or similar) anyway.Consumer society requires increasing numbers of people to be consumers, and consumers are not only conditioned to go to corporations for all their wants/needs, but are conditioned to treat non-consumers as some kind of backward, social-luddite!
Hence the numbers of posts in this discussion that pretty much attack you, or simply parrot exactly what the likes of Google need people to do for them to be profitable.The Trap, mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, is essential viewing for understanding advertising, PR, modern industry, and politics.If the US government will go as far a wire tapping everyone, it would be naive to think governments wouldn't be profiling internet users too.
People's writing styles are fingerprintable through things like topics of writing, grammar habits or mistakes, spelling habits or mistakes.
People use the same or similar usernames across various sites, or their usernames follow patterns, e.g.
PredatoryAnimalNumber. Even with random usernames, people sign up for things with the same email addresses, enter the same ICQ number/AIM username on every forum they sign up to, etc.. The NSA/CIA/Mossad/MI5.... will be well aware of how people behave on line, and how they create and use personae.
Hell, the CIA are a financial backer of Facebook through In-Q-Tel [wikimedia.org], and their money will have bought incredible access to how people behave in groups, and how social groups releate, etc.. All sorts of things most people don't even know exist, and so will laugh at you if you express concern about these issues.Sooner or later, data from widespread profiling will be cross referenced with the stuff industry hoovers up, either through the government becoming more Orwellian, or the government looking to shore up its budgets, so sells its data to industry.Right, that's this rant over.
If I fix it so it reads better it'll be more like my writing, and the Man will know who I am!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161732</id>
	<title>A possible solution</title>
	<author>wavemancali</author>
	<datestamp>1266321840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could always change your first name to Robert'); DROP TABLE Users;</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could always change your first name to Robert ' ) ; DROP TABLE Users ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could always change your first name to Robert'); DROP TABLE Users;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156466</id>
	<title>Relax</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1266343020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure they can see what you are watching but they don't care about you or what you watch.  You are only one in millions.  They are interested in the overall trends of what the millions are watching.  So relax, you're just one grain of sand on the beach.<br> <br>Unless of course you have a vengeful ex somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they can see what you are watching but they do n't care about you or what you watch .
You are only one in millions .
They are interested in the overall trends of what the millions are watching .
So relax , you 're just one grain of sand on the beach .
Unless of course you have a vengeful ex somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they can see what you are watching but they don't care about you or what you watch.
You are only one in millions.
They are interested in the overall trends of what the millions are watching.
So relax, you're just one grain of sand on the beach.
Unless of course you have a vengeful ex somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159246</id>
	<title>Re:Inherent privacy is dead.</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1266353460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy.  Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net.  Embrace it.  Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.</p></div><p>I completely disagree.  Data mining becomes more effective the more information it has.  Connections begin to form.  Bogus information begins to stand out.  Missing information becomes apparent.  Public information transforms in to private information and private information uncovers secrets.  The more data points you have to work with, the more successful you are going to be making these connections.</p><p>Physical commodities are given value based on scarcity (real or perceived) while raw data enjoys a network effect.  So anyone in the business of data analysis is going to be pleased to get as much information as they can get their hands on.  There was a time where storage and processing power were expensive.  However, as noted by Moore's Law, these things are only getting cheaper and more plentiful.  So even "worthless" information costs little to store until a large enough amount has been amassed to become valuable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density , instead of obscurity through privacy .
Billions of people on this earth , nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net .
Embrace it .
Eventually , if enough personal data gets out there , it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.I completely disagree .
Data mining becomes more effective the more information it has .
Connections begin to form .
Bogus information begins to stand out .
Missing information becomes apparent .
Public information transforms in to private information and private information uncovers secrets .
The more data points you have to work with , the more successful you are going to be making these connections.Physical commodities are given value based on scarcity ( real or perceived ) while raw data enjoys a network effect .
So anyone in the business of data analysis is going to be pleased to get as much information as they can get their hands on .
There was a time where storage and processing power were expensive .
However , as noted by Moore 's Law , these things are only getting cheaper and more plentiful .
So even " worthless " information costs little to store until a large enough amount has been amassed to become valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy.
Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net.
Embrace it.
Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.I completely disagree.
Data mining becomes more effective the more information it has.
Connections begin to form.
Bogus information begins to stand out.
Missing information becomes apparent.
Public information transforms in to private information and private information uncovers secrets.
The more data points you have to work with, the more successful you are going to be making these connections.Physical commodities are given value based on scarcity (real or perceived) while raw data enjoys a network effect.
So anyone in the business of data analysis is going to be pleased to get as much information as they can get their hands on.
There was a time where storage and processing power were expensive.
However, as noted by Moore's Law, these things are only getting cheaper and more plentiful.
So even "worthless" information costs little to store until a large enough amount has been amassed to become valuable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156406</id>
	<title>Re:Accept and enjoy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps if their intent was to give it to you; but more than likely just plan to use it as a carrot you will never quite get.  Poker is really the best representation of daily life in game form.  You really are better off the less the other players *know* about your hand be it strong or week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if their intent was to give it to you ; but more than likely just plan to use it as a carrot you will never quite get .
Poker is really the best representation of daily life in game form .
You really are better off the less the other players * know * about your hand be it strong or week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if their intent was to give it to you; but more than likely just plan to use it as a carrot you will never quite get.
Poker is really the best representation of daily life in game form.
You really are better off the less the other players *know* about your hand be it strong or week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160884</id>
	<title>Re:are you the tv shows you watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266317880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...so fucking what?" you say. Which leads me to believe, with a high degree of certainty, that you are a moron.</p><p>Think about it! If I can tell that much about you just from one throw away turn of phrase, then think how much the secret state must know about you from your couch potato, slothful, channel flipping, mind numbing, nonsense watching ways.</p><p>Are you still thinking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...so fucking what ?
" you say .
Which leads me to believe , with a high degree of certainty , that you are a moron.Think about it !
If I can tell that much about you just from one throw away turn of phrase , then think how much the secret state must know about you from your couch potato , slothful , channel flipping , mind numbing , nonsense watching ways.Are you still thinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...so fucking what?
" you say.
Which leads me to believe, with a high degree of certainty, that you are a moron.Think about it!
If I can tell that much about you just from one throw away turn of phrase, then think how much the secret state must know about you from your couch potato, slothful, channel flipping, mind numbing, nonsense watching ways.Are you still thinking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31168080</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but only to an extent. You still have to have a place to live, job, eat, pay taxes, walk past security cameras...  Some things are about impossible to hide from. And that data is mined too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but only to an extent .
You still have to have a place to live , job , eat , pay taxes , walk past security cameras... Some things are about impossible to hide from .
And that data is mined too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but only to an extent.
You still have to have a place to live, job, eat, pay taxes, walk past security cameras...  Some things are about impossible to hide from.
And that data is mined too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156762</id>
	<title>U-verse tip...</title>
	<author>Temkin</author>
	<datestamp>1266344040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Temkin's u-verse tip... Turn off the TV using the native remote.  The box stays on, and continues to stream for hours. It eventually turns off after a timeout of roughly 6 hours.  But they can never be certain where I stopped watching.  Just adds a little noise to their data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Temkin 's u-verse tip... Turn off the TV using the native remote .
The box stays on , and continues to stream for hours .
It eventually turns off after a timeout of roughly 6 hours .
But they can never be certain where I stopped watching .
Just adds a little noise to their data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Temkin's u-verse tip... Turn off the TV using the native remote.
The box stays on, and continues to stream for hours.
It eventually turns off after a timeout of roughly 6 hours.
But they can never be certain where I stopped watching.
Just adds a little noise to their data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31166602</id>
	<title>Re:Try to skew their stats, if you must...</title>
	<author>Splintax</author>
	<datestamp>1265019300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, many vendors' sites &mdash; including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as "invalid" &mdash; the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companies.</p></div><p>I've always assumed that that was not because the code couldn't handle an email address with a + in it, but because sub-addressing is a well-known trick and legitimate businesses want to stop you from using it (without being deliberately dishonest and stripping out everything following the +).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , many vendors ' sites    including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as " invalid "    the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees , employed by these companies.I 've always assumed that that was not because the code could n't handle an email address with a + in it , but because sub-addressing is a well-known trick and legitimate businesses want to stop you from using it ( without being deliberately dishonest and stripping out everything following the + ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, many vendors' sites — including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as "invalid" — the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companies.I've always assumed that that was not because the code couldn't handle an email address with a + in it, but because sub-addressing is a well-known trick and legitimate businesses want to stop you from using it (without being deliberately dishonest and stripping out everything following the +).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158662</id>
	<title>Re:Accept that privacy is a relic and move on.</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1266350880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you die the Octomom will have another baby and replace you.</p></div><p>Your fantastic rant was beautifully capped with the Octomom Prophecy.  I think I've found a new sig.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you die the Octomom will have another baby and replace you.Your fantastic rant was beautifully capped with the Octomom Prophecy .
I think I 've found a new sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you die the Octomom will have another baby and replace you.Your fantastic rant was beautifully capped with the Octomom Prophecy.
I think I've found a new sig.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161278</id>
	<title>Read Scifi</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1266319620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brin has already written on this topic multiple times.  Harrison, Stainless Steel Rat ftw, also used to talk about how this would happen.  I'd like to think Asimov would have seen this but it was before his time.  But I bet had you told Issac how the internet and IT was going to work he would have figured it out too.</p><p>We are going to lose the privacy wars but I hope that we will win a few things back because of it.  Like a bit more transparency at the higher levels.  (Yes the higher levels will do more to fight it but having been a part of the hacker sect for a bit I know they will fight the good fight, yo ho ho and bottle of rum.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brin has already written on this topic multiple times .
Harrison , Stainless Steel Rat ftw , also used to talk about how this would happen .
I 'd like to think Asimov would have seen this but it was before his time .
But I bet had you told Issac how the internet and IT was going to work he would have figured it out too.We are going to lose the privacy wars but I hope that we will win a few things back because of it .
Like a bit more transparency at the higher levels .
( Yes the higher levels will do more to fight it but having been a part of the hacker sect for a bit I know they will fight the good fight , yo ho ho and bottle of rum .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brin has already written on this topic multiple times.
Harrison, Stainless Steel Rat ftw, also used to talk about how this would happen.
I'd like to think Asimov would have seen this but it was before his time.
But I bet had you told Issac how the internet and IT was going to work he would have figured it out too.We are going to lose the privacy wars but I hope that we will win a few things back because of it.
Like a bit more transparency at the higher levels.
(Yes the higher levels will do more to fight it but having been a part of the hacker sect for a bit I know they will fight the good fight, yo ho ho and bottle of rum.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157284</id>
	<title>Re:You surrendered.</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1266345780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked at Comcast and they wanted SSN, but didn't mind if people didn't give it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at Comcast and they wanted SSN , but did n't mind if people did n't give it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at Comcast and they wanted SSN, but didn't mind if people didn't give it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157656</id>
	<title>Ran into the same problem with a gym...</title>
	<author>ArcadeX</author>
	<datestamp>1266347160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was looking to switch gyms, and when I went to tour a new one that opened up they wouldn't take me around the place unless i filled out a questionaire with my name, address, phone, and email. I'm perfectly willing to give them that info (minus email) if i sign up, but I made a stand on principle and asked them why they needed all that info just to show me the place. after he insisted that i couldn't tour the gym without it, i decided they didn't need my business and left, with them looking at me like i'm stupid...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking to switch gyms , and when I went to tour a new one that opened up they would n't take me around the place unless i filled out a questionaire with my name , address , phone , and email .
I 'm perfectly willing to give them that info ( minus email ) if i sign up , but I made a stand on principle and asked them why they needed all that info just to show me the place .
after he insisted that i could n't tour the gym without it , i decided they did n't need my business and left , with them looking at me like i 'm stupid.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking to switch gyms, and when I went to tour a new one that opened up they wouldn't take me around the place unless i filled out a questionaire with my name, address, phone, and email.
I'm perfectly willing to give them that info (minus email) if i sign up, but I made a stand on principle and asked them why they needed all that info just to show me the place.
after he insisted that i couldn't tour the gym without it, i decided they didn't need my business and left, with them looking at me like i'm stupid...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156578</id>
	<title>It seems...</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1266343500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it.</p></div><p>...you just answered your own question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm extremely annoyed by that , yet I love the service so much and I do n't think I can cancel it....you just answered your own question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm extremely annoyed by that, yet I love the service so much and I don't think I can cancel it....you just answered your own question.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156772</id>
	<title>Apt quote ...</title>
	<author>debrain</author>
	<datestamp>1266344100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... from the intellectuals of yore:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.</p></div><p> &mdash; "The Right to Privacy", Warren and Brandeis, Harvard Law Review, Vol. IV, December 15, 1890.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... from the intellectuals of yore : The intensity and complexity of life , attendant upon advancing civilization , have rendered necessary some retreat from the world , and man , under the refining influence of culture , has become more sensitive to publicity , so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual ; but modern enterprise and invention have , through invasions upon his privacy , subjected him to mental pain and distress , far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury .
   " The Right to Privacy " , Warren and Brandeis , Harvard Law Review , Vol .
IV , December 15 , 1890 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... from the intellectuals of yore:The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.
— "The Right to Privacy", Warren and Brandeis, Harvard Law Review, Vol.
IV, December 15, 1890.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160810</id>
	<title>Re:Try to skew their stats, if you must...</title>
	<author>dotancohen</author>
	<datestamp>1266317580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When forced to give out e-mail address online, use the <tt>VendorName@yourdomain</tt>. If the vendor abuses your trust (such as by automatically adding you to their e-mailing list), you can block that single address. If you don't have your own domain (how come?) you could use <tt>yourself<strong>+</strong> <em>Vendorname</em>@gmail.com</tt> for the same purpose (it is a shame, Yahoo! Mail does not support the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail\_address#Sub-addressing" title="wikipedia.org">sub-address</a> [wikipedia.org]). Unfortunately, many vendors' sites &mdash; including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as "invalid" &mdash; the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companies. This is where having your own domain is very useful.</p></div><p>You might want to comment on these two Kmail feature requests, which are designed to allow just that:<br><a href="https://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=72926" title="kde.org">https://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=72926</a> [kde.org]<br><a href="http://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=159251" title="kde.org">http://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=159251</a> [kde.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When forced to give out e-mail address online , use the VendorName @ yourdomain .
If the vendor abuses your trust ( such as by automatically adding you to their e-mailing list ) , you can block that single address .
If you do n't have your own domain ( how come ?
) you could use yourself + Vendorname @ gmail.com for the same purpose ( it is a shame , Yahoo !
Mail does not support the sub-address [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Unfortunately , many vendors ' sites    including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as " invalid "    the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees , employed by these companies .
This is where having your own domain is very useful.You might want to comment on these two Kmail feature requests , which are designed to allow just that : https : //bugs.kde.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 72926 [ kde.org ] http : //bugs.kde.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 159251 [ kde.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When forced to give out e-mail address online, use the VendorName@yourdomain.
If the vendor abuses your trust (such as by automatically adding you to their e-mailing list), you can block that single address.
If you don't have your own domain (how come?
) you could use yourself+ Vendorname@gmail.com for the same purpose (it is a shame, Yahoo!
Mail does not support the sub-address [wikipedia.org]).
Unfortunately, many vendors' sites — including highly prominent ones like the Enom-registrar reject the sub-addressing e-mails as "invalid" — the verifying regular expressions must be too complicated for the dumb programmer wannabees, employed by these companies.
This is where having your own domain is very useful.You might want to comment on these two Kmail feature requests, which are designed to allow just that:https://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=72926 [kde.org]http://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=159251 [kde.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31169760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31194420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31167942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31166602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31168080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31164666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31177974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31205638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1525257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31194420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31177974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31167942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31168080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157546
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158846
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31162524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31169760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31166602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31161116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31164666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31159222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31163418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31165960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31157106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31205638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31160360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31158922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1525257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1525257.31156554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
